Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS and MEANS,proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order).

Second Reading deferred till the first Sitting Day after 23rd March.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely: —

Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PUBLICATION (INQUIRY).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his inquiries have now been completed about the publication of an article on Armistice Day, printed in a magazine described as the "Chronicle," of No. 6 Non-Combatant Labour Corps; and whether he can make a statement?

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the result of his inquiries regarding the paper described as "Chronicles," No. 6 Company, Non-Combatant Labour Corps?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): The magazine in question was edited and published by the noncommissioned officers and men of No. 6

Company, Non-Combatant Labour Corps. When the first issue appeared, it was found that certain of its contents, and in particular an article on Armistice Day, were of an objectionable nature. The distribution of the first issue was therefore stopped, and no further issues will be published.

OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Army Order 160, of 1939, outfit allowance, is not being adhered to by the military authorities; whether that order still holds good; and, if so, whether he will see that those allowances for kit shall be made good to those officers whose claims have been turned down though they were eligible for that outfit grant on rejoining from the Army Reserve?

Captain Margesson: I am not aware of any case in which the provisions of Army Order 160 of 1939, which governs the issue of outfit allowance to officers rejoining from the Reserve, are not being observed. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I shall be glad to look into it.

Brigadier-General Brown: If 1 bring a case to the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend, will he look into it without any prejudice against the officer concerned?

Captain Margesson: Most certainly, Sir.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to certain matters concerning the Home Guard, including compensation when called up for full-time duty?

Captain Margesson: I had intended to deal with the question of compensation for loss of earnings in a more comprehensive statement covering various questions affecting the Home Guard, but it has now been decided to issue instructions on this point at once. Compensation for loss of earnings will be allowed to the Home Guard up to a maximum of 10s. a day on the same lines as for the Civil Defence Services. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL


REPORT an outline of the conditions under which compensation will be paid.

Following is an outline of the conditions:

Compensation for loss of earnings will be allowed to the Home Guard up to a maximum of 10s. a day on the same lines as for the Civil Defence Services. It should be emphasised that the Home Guard remains essentially a part-time unpaid force and that interference with a man's civil occupation can be justified only by conditions of real emergency. The arrangements for compensation are thus intended to meet quite exceptional cases where members of the Home Guard are called upon to carry out their duties at times other than those normally contemplated, either through being called out during their working hours or through being retained on duty when already out and when it is not possible for the duty to be carried out by those whose employment is not affected. The retention on duty during working hours must have been authorised by the battalion commander or by higher military authority in emergency as a matter of military necessity or if the men are actually called out at a time which interferes with their normal civil occupation this must be under direct orders from the higher regular military command. Subsistence allowance will not be payable for any period of continuous duty in respect of which a man receives compensation for loss of wages. These arrangements will apply equally in the event of volunteers being called out for temporary full-time duty in case of invasion, subject to such relaxation of the conditions for making claims, etc., as may be found necessary in the particular circumstances. Instructions in regard to the making of claims and the method of payment when the case arises are being issued at once to all concerned.

Mr. Frankel: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to report to the House the results of his inquiry into the action of a colonel at zone headquarters, Home Guard, with respect to the selection of officers?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. As I have previously stated, it is an instruction to the Selection Boards which recommend appointments to commissions in the Home Guard that officers will be chosen primarily for their powers of leadership

and the confidence they are likely to inspire in all ranks, and that business, social or political prominence will not be regarded as a qualification in this respect. The reports which I have now received on the case to which my hon. Friend refers make it clear that the memorandum issued by the zone commander was not in accordance with the above instruction. Steps were at once taken to remove any misunderstanding that may have existed as a result of this memorandum, and I am satisfied that the official instructions are now being strictly observed by all concerned. The zone commander has since vacated his appointment.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of all the circumstances, and of the admission of friendly aliens to the Auxiliary Territorial Service, he will remove the ban on entry into the Home Guard of those whose parents were not born British subjects, while retaining all necessary safeguards?

Captain Margesson: Any male British subject between the ages of 17 and 65, and of reasonable physical fitness, is now eligible for enrolment in the Home Guard irrespective of his parents' nationality, provided that he does not also possess German, Austrian or Italian nationality, or is not married to a woman of German, Austrian or Italian birth. Where an applicant is disqualified by this proviso, his case may be submitted for special consideration if he served with the British Forces in the last war. Nationals, by birth, of an allied or neutral state, are also eligible for enrolment under the same conditions as British subjects, if they are vouched for by the chief constable of the county or borough in which they reside.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not rather a foolish objection merely because a man is married to a person of another nationality? Can we have an answer? There is a great deal of hardship arising out of these absurd restrictions.

Captain Margesson: We always look into these matters, but I think we have now gone a long way in this case. We had better see how it works out.

Mr. G. Strauss: If a German can join the Pioneer Corps, surely an Englishman who has married a German refugee can join the Home Guard?

COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that no persons about to be called up for compulsory military service are appointed to direct commissions in the Army?

Captain Margesson: No one. now receives a commission without previous service in the ranks, except from the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve, which consists either of ex-officers or of men with special qualifications. A candidate may not be accepted for the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve after the date on which he is required to register under the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts, unless he is in a reserved occupation or possesses rare specialist knowledge required for some particular appointment, for which older candidates are not available. Cases of the latter type are very exceptional. Members of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve are not exempt from the provisions of the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts, if they have not been selected for a commissioned appointment by the date on which they are liable to be called up for service in the ordinary way.

COURT-MARTIAL (INQUIRY).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the finding of the court-martial on Private James A. Hughes, of No. 3 Holding Company, Royal Army Service Corps, has not been promulgated, as this man has been under arrest since 23rd December, and the court-martial took place seven weeks ago?

Captain Margesson: I understand from preliminary inquiries that the finding and sentence of the court-martial have now been promulgated, and that the man has been released, a portion of his sentence having been remitted. I am, however, awaiting a full report on the circumstances of this case, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when this is received.

Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend ascertain why this man, after being confined 75 days, was released last Thursday night when his sentence was only for 56 days, 11 days of which were remitted?

Captain Margesson: That will be part of the inquiry.

OFFICERS' SERVANTS (ALIENS).

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for War what order is in operation as to the employment of subjects of enemy States as servants in the houses of officers serving with their units; whether he is aware that Italians are so employed by the officer commanding a unit at or near his station in a particular area, of which details have been furnished; and whether, in view of the misgivings felt locally in the matter and all the circumstances of this area, he will issue the necessary instructions that in the public interest this employment should cease?

Captain Margesson: Existing instructions provide that persons of German, Austrian or Italian nationality may not be employed in any circumstances by military personnel. Orders have now been issued that the employment of the Italian servants to whom my hon. friend refers should be terminated.

Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. and gallant friend state what instructions, if any, have been issued as regards aliens who have recently married British subjects?

Captain Margesson: I think my hon. Friend had better give me notice of specific cases.

ANTI-WASTE OFFICER.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War what methods the newly- appointed anti-waste officer is using in his dealing with Army camps; and with what results?

Captain Margesson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made to the House on Thursday last. As the appointment is less than a month old, I am afraid that we must wait a little longer before we can expect results.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it not a fact that one of the causes of waste is the way in which the rationing system is working in the Army? For example, cheese is being served out whether the troops want it or not, and consequently it often finds its way into the pig swill.

Captain Margesson: If that is so, it is very bad. No doubt that is a point which will be drawn to our attention when this officer has been a little longer in his position.

Mr. Mathers: Will this officer's jurisdiction cover bad cooking?

Captain Margesson: There are other ways and means of dealing with cooking.

LEAVE (FREE TRAVEL WARRANTS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement on the question of granting extra tree travel warrants in the Army to conform with the facilities given in this respect to the other two Defence Services?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. In consideration of the exceptional conditions of service in bomb-disposal units, I am about to issue instructions that members of these units will receive two free travel warrants for leave journeys during every period of six months' service with a bomb disposal unit, subject to an overriding maximum of four warrants in any period of 12 months. This maximum will not include existing entitlements to free warrants for sick leave and compassionate leave when homes have been seriously damaged by enemy action. This concession corresponds to those recently announced in respect of naval personnel serving afloat and Royal Air Force flying personnel, as it is felt that the conditions of service in bomb-disposal units are analogous from the point of view of exceptional hardship or danger.

SPECIAL SEPARATION GRANTS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the special separation grants made to soldiers, whose families reside outside the sterling area, of 21s. per week in the case of officers, and 13s. in the case of soldiers, relate to wives only or whether any additional sum is paid to children;
(2) what is the nature of the conditions to be prescribed by the War Office for the withdrawal of special separation grants in the case of soldiers' families resident in enemy occupied country or outside the sterling area?

Captain Margesson: Special separation grants are made at the rates of 21s. and 13s. a week in the case of an officer and a soldier, respectively, irrespective of the size of his family, except that, where allowances would, under normal conditions, have been issuable in respect of one motherless child, only one-half of the rates is given. Permission to withdraw the special separation grant placed to an officer's or soldier's provisional credit under the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers, will normally be given only when the family returns to the sterling

area, or when the restrictions on remittances to places outside that area are removed.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered the latter Question as to the nature of the conditions, which are to be eventually laid down, under which an officer or soldier can withdraw these special grants.

Captain Margesson: I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, on 25th February, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member, the general conditions of grants in respect of these officers and soldiers.

Mr. Bellenger: In that Reply the right hon. and gallant Gentleman merely said that the amount provisionally granted would be withdrawable only when the War Office sanctioned it and under such conditions as might be prescribed. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider that officers and soldiers, who are contributing a considerable amount of these grants, should know something in the provisions under which they can withdraw the grants?

Captain Margesson: The subject is really wrapped up in the question of returns of the family and the sterling areas. My hon. Friend will appreciate difficulties of transferring money from this country to outside.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Scottish Temperance Alliance, urging the restriction of the manufacture and consumption of alcoholic liquors to assist the national effort; and whether action is being taken to this end?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Yes, Sir. The resolution referred to has been considered. As my hon. Friend is aware, certain restrictions are presently in operation. Production of whisky is limited to one-third of the quantity produced in the year ending 30th September, 1939, and sugar for beer is now reduced to 60 per cent. of the quantity used in that year. There have been increases in price of whisky and beer arising from higher excise duties and consumption has decreased. I have, how-


ever brought the views expressed in the resolution to the notice of other Ministers concerned, and I shall continue with them to keep a close watch on the situation.

Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend himself satisfied that the Government are fully seized of the importance of the matter?

Mr. Johnston: I think that is the import of the final paragraph of my answer.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Has my right hon. Friend considered the speech of the chairman of the Public House Trust at their annual meeting in Glasgow on this subject?

Mr. Johnston: My attention has not been drawn to that.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I take it my right hon. Friend will take into consideration all sides of the question?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir.

CROFTS AND HOUSES (FLOODING).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to deal with the flooding of crofts and houses, in a place of which he has been informed, owing to failure to clear watercourses, especially on a certain estate; and when it is expected that effective remedies will be applied to prevent valuable productive land from being ruined?

Mr. Johnston: Operations were begun by the landlord last autumn to counteract flooding on the lands referred to in the Question, but any effective remedy will probably involve work on a much larger and more costly scale than was originally contemplated. The engineering and financial problems will be investigated at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can obtain information regarding Rifleman Ernest Mitchell, prisoner, No. 11142, in Stalag VIII. B, in Germany, as, though his mother was told by the Red Cross Society seven weeks ago that a special message would be sent to Geneva on her behalf, she has heard nothing and is very anxious?

Captain Margesson: I understand that the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John sent a cable to Geneva some weeks ago in response to a request from the soldier's mother, and that up to the present no reply has been received. I have asked the War Organisation to send a reminder b cable.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PLANKTON (WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND).

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the immense untapped stores of nourishing food material existing off the West coast of Scotland in the form of plankton; and whether he will set up a committee, with the necessary biological and engineering knowledge to inquire into the practicability of making such food material available for human consumption?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I have been asked to reply to this Question. I am advised that, even if it were practicable to prepare it in a form suitable for human consumption, the quantity of material likely to be obtained would be an insignificant contribution to our food supplies.

LEEKS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he intends to take steps to increase the supply and reduce the price of leeks?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend does not intend to take any special steps to increase the supply of leeks next season. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), on 5th February.

Mr. Cocks: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that only recently the sum of 5d. was asked for one specimen of this insignificant Welsh weed?

EMERGENCY RATIONS (SCHOOLS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what arrangements he has made for a reserve supply of emergency foodstuffs, including chocolate, at schools throughout


the country in the event of pupils being detained for several hours in school in consequence of air-raid warnings?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. In Circular 1535 on A.R.P. for Schools, issued in December, the Board recommended the provision of emergency rations for children unable to leave school at the dinner hour or at the end of the afternoon session in areas subject to prolonged alerts in the daytime. The schools affected are relatively few, and I have no evidence that they have had difficulty in getting suitable supplies.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is replying to this Question, as it refers to schools in Scotland? Does the circular letter that he mentioned in his answer refer to Scotland at all?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The Question on the Paper refers to schools throughout the country.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I represent a constituency in Scotland, and will he keep it in mind that the subject-matter of this Question is one of very grave anxiety to school teachers there, and that in certain districts in the North with which he is rather unfamiliar the school teachers themselves are doing what they can privately to meet this possible serious emergency?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (GOLD MINING).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the number of men engaged in digging for gold in the Union of South Africa, Australia and Canada, respectively?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): According to the latest information available, approximately 40,000 persons are employed in the gold-mining industry in Canada and 30,000 in Australia. In 1939, 45,000 Europeans and 348,000 non-Europeans were employed in the industry in the Union of South Africa.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that these people are engaged in what is ultimately a perfectly useless occupation, will the hon. Gentleman consider recommend-

ing to their respective Governments that their efforts be turned to the production of greater wealth?

Mr. Shakespeare: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question down.

Mr. Mander: Do these figures include women gold-diggers?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOBACCO SUPPLIES.

Mr. Scott: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now satisfied that the workers in Northumberland and County Durham are able to obtain their fair share of the popular brands of tobacco and cigarettes?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): As was stated in the reply given on 6th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville), the recent temporary acute shortage of tobacco and cigarettes in the North-East of England was primarily due to dislocation of transport services to that area owing to the very heavy snow fall. I understand that supplies are now arriving and that Northumberland and Durham should shortly receive again their fair share of tobacco and cigarettes.

Mr. Scott: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the maldistribution still continues and is causing a certain amount of annoyance and irritation to would-be smokers and is a real hardship to a great many small shopkeepers?

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pretty much the same answer as he has now given was given last week? There are no cigarettes to be got at all.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I left last night and there were no cigarettes?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have said they will be shortly arriving.

Mr. Denville: When is this blockade of Newcastle and the North-East Coast going to stop?

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION.

Mr. Cary: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that in the reorganisation of industry firms which have benefited by the war, such as aircraft and munition


works, and continue to expand by taking workers from other trades, shall be made to compensate the non-essential industries which are shut or merged, and also will be placed under a statutory obligation to assist in replacing employés in their former trades in the post-war years?

Mr. Lyttelton: As explained in the statement which I made on 5th March, the firms enabled by industrial concentration to work to capacity are expected by the Government to provide a measure of compensation for firms that are closed down. The difficulty of my hon. Friend's suggestion is similar to that which precludes the use of public funds to provide compensation in these cases. With regard to the last part of the Question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is anxious that all possible assistance should be given so that workers now transferred to munitions work may return to their former employment after the war, and for this purpose records will be kept of workers transferred through the concentration of the less essential industries. He does not, however, think it practicable to place statutory obligations for reinstatement on the employers to whom they are transferred for war work.

Mr. Cary: If three-quarters of our industrial life is to be brought into common employment in war production surely any scheme of compensation must be cast as wide as possible and not limited to a few sections of the home trade?

Mr. Levy: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has now said with the fact that a great many employers have entered into an obligation to make up to civilian rates the wages of employés who have left for the Army? Is this obligation to be null and void?

Mr. Lyttelton: I was asked whether it was the intention to impose an obligation to re-instate. The answer is, "No."

SPORTS GOODS.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has further considered the question of the supply of sports goods to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, whereby ordinary traders in these goods are placed at a severe disadvantage; and

whether he will now take steps to ensure that the ordinary trade shall have equal facilities to obtain supplies to meet the service demands?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I am arranging that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes will not supply sports goods direct to individuals but only to units of His Majesty's Forces; and retail traders will be allowed to obtain supplies of sports goods without restriction against a certificate from the unit commander, in order to replace goods sold to such units. Thus they will have equal facilities. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of announcing that new arrangements are also being made regarding the supply by the Institutes of other goods controlled by the Limitation of Supplies Orders. By agreement with the institutes, I am cancelling the arrangement whereby they were able to obtain unrestricted supplies of certain classes of goods. For other classes, the institutes have agreed to a substantial restriction of their purchases and sales. These arrangements will remove anomalies complained of by retail shopkeepers but I must not disguise the fact that they will impose on soldiers, as well as on civilians, the need to economise consumption.

Sir A. Southby: That answer will give great satisfaction to the retail trade.

Mr. R. Gibson: On what basis will the supply to these institutes of restricted goods now be made?

Mr. Lyttelton: In so far as that is covered by my answer, it will be a restriction which is applicable to these goods in the Limitation of Supplies Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE BILL (FURNITURE).

Sir I. Albery: asked the President of the Board of Trade how furniture placed in storage, and furniture in houses in divided occupation, will be dealt with by regulations under the War Damage Bill?

Mr. Lyttelton: In each of the cases referred to by my hon. Friend, the owner of the furniture will be entitled to insure it under the private chattels scheme. The precise allocation in these cases of the amounts of free compensation announced in his speech on 25th February by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is now being considered.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable misapprehension among householders who have been under the necessity of placing their chattels in public warehouses and do not know whether or not they are covered by the Bill to the extent of £300? Could he make it clear that they are in fact covered free of insurance?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will ask the hon. Gentleman to put a Question on the Paper.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this and he asked me to write to the President of the Board of Trade, and I have received no reply from him?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the matter is one of some delicacy. It is now being examined.

Sir F. Sanderson: The question is whether goods and chattels in a public warehouse are insured or not. That is, surely, not a difficult point.

Mr. Lyttelton: The answer is "Yes," but I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a Question on the Paper, when he will get a full answer.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not the fact that under the War Commodities Insurance Act, as amended by the War Damage Bill, there is an obligation upon the storekeeper to insure such furniture as being goods in his possession for the purposes of his trade or business?

Mr. Dc la Bère: Surely, if we do the right thing now, we need not fear the unknown future?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (SHIP INSPECTION).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances in which a steamer left a British port in an unseaworthy condition last month, details of which have been sent him by the hon. Member for West Fife; and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such occurrences with possibly fatal consequences?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have had an opportunity

of looking into the points whch he raised in the letter to which he refers.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it still compulsory that there should be an inspection of ships before they leave port?

Mr. Cross: It depends upon the inspection the hon. Member is referring to. A certain number of inspections do take place.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that every ship that leaves port should have an inspection to see that it is sea-worthy?

Mr. Cross: If the hon. Member wants to know precisely how often ships arc inspected, I would ask him to put down a Question.

Mr. Davidson: Are all ships before they leave port inspected as to their seaworthiness?

Mr. Cross: Not on every occasion.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Plimsoll load line still operating?

Mr. Cross: Most certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENTS (PREVENTIVE MEASURES).

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he proposes to take with a view to reducing the number of road accidents?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security, I am proceeding as far as circumstances allow, on the following lines: (1) Influence on public opinion; (2) Safeguards in the black-out; (3) Enforcement of the law. In recent months there has been a serious deterioration in the conduct of all types of road users, and the publicity campaigns being conducted by the Ministry of Information and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents aim at bringing the public to a sense of the care which they must exercise if accidents on the roads are to be reduced.
The measures possible to safeguard the public against the effects of carelessness are very limited. It is a strategic necessity that the black-out should be preserved, but subject to the overriding necessity of


avoiding visibility from the air, a reasonable driving light is now permitted. Aids to movement for all road users in the shape of white lines, white markings and lights on islands and other obstructions, as well as a reduced form of street lighting are being provided. Enforcement presents a difficult problem to the police, who have many additional responsibilities. It is not possible to continue on any extensive scale the special police patrols which promised much success before the war, but police supervision is not by any means being suspended, and in certain directions I hope it may be possible to intensify it during the coming months.

Sir I. Albery: I could not hear all the reply, but did I understand the hon. Member to say that persons using the roads in a black-out would have to wear something white?

Mr. Montague: No, the only reference to white was the marking of roads.

Sir I. Albery: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is impossible to see people who are in the road in a black-out unless they do wear something white?

Mr. Montague: In a broadcast which I myself made people were strongly advised to wear something white, but I think the hon. Member will see the difficulty there would be in enforcing any regulation that they must wear white.

Sir I. Albery: I cannot see any difficulty, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to give some further attention to this point in order to see whether there is any real difficulty.

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of issuing advice that persons should wear a white band at the bottom of the skirt or the bottom of the trouser leg, as drivers look to the ground and often cannot see a band on the arm? Many drivers have said that it is much easier to avoid women because they wear light stockings.

Mr. Montague: I am rather afraid that that question justifies my statement about the difficulty of enforcing any regulation of this kind. I should not like to have the job.

Mr. R. Gibson: Would the Minister recommend pedestrians to wear white gasmask containers?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S RESPIRATORS (REPAIR).

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the hardship caused to working-class parents with large families who have to pay for repairs to their children's gas-masks, due to damage caused by the deterioration of the rubber, which cannot be the parent's responsibility; and, as small children can not be expected to exercise the same care as an adult, will he take steps to pay this charge?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): My right hon. Friend already has under review the present arrangements for the repair or replacement of children's respirators and will bear in mind the considerations referred to by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

PEACE AIMS.

Mr. Cove: asked the Minister of In formation whether he will make arrangements for the broadcasting of the case for a statement of peace aims, as distinct from peace terms, by a non-pacifist at an early date?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): The case for and against a discussion of peace aims has been ventilated both on the wireless and in the Press, and the Government see no reason at present to encourage further discussion.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend state the date on which a statement of peace aims was made?

Mr. Nicolson: I am afraid I should want notice of that question.

FORCES PROGRAMME WAVELENGTH.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Information whether he has any statement to make regarding the new Forces programme wavelength; and whether the good reception obtained at Greenock on the new wavelength corresponds with the information he has as to its reception throughout the country?

Mr. Nicolson: I am grateful to learn that the change of wavelength has led to better reception of the Forces programme


at Greenock, and I am glad to say that a similar improvement has been obtained in several other parts of the country. Moreover, it is now possible to devote the new wavelength exclusively to this programme, as the foreign language bulletins which previously had to be transmitted along with it are now dealt with by other means.

Mr. Davidson: Is reception of this programme improved where there is an abnormal rainfall?

Mr. Nicolson: I would not say that.

Mr. Gibson: Can the hon. Member say whether reception in any area depends upon the rainfall?

INVASION INSTRUCTIONS LEAFLET.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Information when the Government's handbook on invasion will be available for Members; and how he intends the book to be put into the possession of householders and others?

Mr. Nicolson: The final text of these instructions will probably be approved within the next few days. They will be distributed in leaflet form by the Post Office to every household in the Kingdom. They will be issued at the same time to the Press, and copies will be available in the Library.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister see to it that these notes, when issued, are more intelligent than were the notes that were issued in connection with India?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (AIR RAIDS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many times Malta has been bombed since the war started?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The records kept in my Department show that, up to the end of last week, Malta has been bombed on 114 occasions. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the gallantry and efficiency of the defenders of the island, and to the courage and high morale which the civil population have throughout displayed.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House of the

number of people who have been killed there?

Sir A. Sinclair: I should want notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) ACT.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Attorney-General what regulations have been made in connection with ground landlords of bombed sites collecting ground rent beyond the date on which the damage occurred?

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): The question of ground rents is not a matter which can properly be dealt with by regulation. I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on 19th February.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, unless some steps are taken in the matter, ground landlords will absorb all the compensation?

The Solicitor-General: That and other relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is it not a fact that some people are being called upon to pay ground rent for premises that have disappeared altogether, as well as having to pay for accommodation?

The Solicitor-General: The whole matter is under consideration, but the scope of any proposals will depend in part on the form in which the War Damage Bill emerges from another place.

Mr. Stokes: Will legislation be retrospective?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot say.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will legislation in regard to ground rents be extended to cover chief rents?

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL SALES (PAPER WRAPPING).

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that some retail firms are continuing to wrap the goods they sell in paper, while others are refraining from doing so in response to the appeals from the Paper


Controller; and what steps he proposes to take in regard to firms who waste paper in this manner?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. I thank my hon. Friend for this opportunity of calling attention to a notice which has recently been issued reminding retailers and others that it is an offence under the Control of Paper (No. 28) Order to wrap or pack with paper any article which does not reasonably require any such wrapping or packing for its protection.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: If my hon. Friend's attention were drawn to specific instances, would he consider taking disciplinary action?

Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend will be glad to receive information about any instances in which it is alleged that the Order has been neglected. Certain warnings have already been given, and my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to take further action in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AND PEACE ATMS (MINISTERS' STATEMENTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of printing, in the form of a White Paper, the various statements that have been made from time to time on behalf of the Government by Ministers with regard to our war and peace aims, so that they may appear in a collected form?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. It is not intended to impose this labour upon the Departments at this busy time.

Mr. Mander: Is that because of the vast amount of paper that would be required? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Government has said less about peace aims than even the Chamberlain Government did?

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the insistence of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on this matter, would it not be possible to give the hon. Member an opportunity to publish a book drawing the frontiers of the world after the war, with particular reference to the economic and political systems that he would impose upon the defeated countries?

Mr. McGovern: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he has changed his views regarding the publication of peace aims since he went from this side of the House to the other side?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (LENGTH OF SPEECHES).

Mr. Levy: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of proposing a time limit on speeches with a view to the expedition of Parliamentary business, and enabling more Members to take part in Debates if some such restriction were imposed?

Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 18th February last, in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd.).

Mr. Levy: Would it not be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to give some guidance on the matter? One does not object to Ministers taking time, if necessary, but should there not be a time limit applying to back benchers?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for Thursday, 25th May, 1939, when the matter was fully discussed and when Mr. Speaker gave certain advice to the House.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on Scottish days, Members voluntarily limit themselves to speeches lasting 15 minutes?

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the House now spends less time in this way than it has ever done?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the names of the hon. Member for North Lambeth and a number of other hon. Members, relating to Political Discrimination?

[That this House strongly disapproves of making political opinion the cause of discrimination in employment in the service of the State, or of any local authority, or of any body deriving its


authority from the State, except in employments where the national security and the successful prosecution of the war are directly involved.]

Mr. Attlee: I fear I can hold out no hope of time being found for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent action of the B.B.C in banning artists and dismissing technicians, because of political opinions, is causing considerable concern, and will the Government take action, or give some special time for discussion?

Mr. Attlee: The attitude of the Government on this matter, that there should be no discrimination, is very well known. The matter can be raised on the Adjournment if the hon. Member has any specific case which he wishes to bring forward.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in the names of more than 40 Members, which is evidence of desire for a Debate on the matter, and that we are entitled to ask for facilities? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise also that it is impossible to separate the B.B.C. from the Government and that great harm been done to the reputation of this country? Ought we not to sit upon another day, if there is not enough Government time for such a Debate?

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the Government look into this matter, as there is a widespread feeling that great damage is being done to our cause, here and elsewhere?

Mr. Attlee: The Government will certainly look into the matter. Hon. Members will no doubt realise the difficulty in the way of giving time to it, but there is no reason why a Debate should not take place upon the Adjournment, or later, upon a Supply Day.

Mr. Strauss: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subject is actually out of order upon the Adjournment? When I tried to raise the matter a little time ago I was told that the subject of the B.B.C. was out of order, and that is the reason why the Motion was put upon the Order Paper.

Mr. Attlee: I see nothing about the B.B.C. in the Motion, which deals with the general question.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a more recent incident, not referred to in the Question, but germane to it, where the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked for a broadcast to be made by a well-known author in this country, and facilities were refused by the B.B.C; and, as the broadcast had been widely advertised in Canada, this caused very great disappointment in the Dominion and was put down to B.B.C. intolerance?

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling in this country, because of the discrimination that is taking place, that we are well on the road to totalitarian government? Are the Labour Ministers prepared to do anything to protect the liberties of minorities in this matter?

Mr. Henry Strauss: When my right hon. Friend looks into the matter, will he bear in mind that, out of the first 500 signatories to the manifesto of the People's Convention, 100 had broadcast for the B.B.C? Is it not obvious that the Communists are seeking their dupes among those who have the publicity of the B.B.C?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSEHOLD WASTE (COLLECTION).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgent necessity of securing the maximum amount of kitchen waste for feeding pigs and poultry, he will consider setting up a public utility corporation, under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture or Supply, to operate in those areas where there is at present no organised collection?

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have been asked to reply. The question of setting up a central authority to supplement other methods of dealing with kitchen waste for feeding pigs and poultry is under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is conferring with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the subject.

Mr. De la Bère: How long will this matter be under consideration? Is my hon. Friend not aware that the poultry and pigs in this country are being


slaughtered, owing to lack of feeding-stuffs? Is it not necessary to revise or, in some csaes, waive, local legislation? If Tottenham can do it, why cannot other places? Why does the Ministry of Agriculture not wake up? In view of the fact that this matter has been trifled with for over a year while pigs and poultry have been slaughtered, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter without further ado on the Adjournment. It is a farce.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, he will immediately set up a judicial court of inquiry, at which witnesses can give evidence on oath, be cross-examined, and parties be represented by counsel, and with powers to inflict punishment on persons found guilty of waste, extravagance and dishonesty, in the carrying out of Government contracts?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend has not yet had time to consider fully this matter, but if my hon. Friend will repeat his Question in a week's time, I hope it will be possible to give him a reply.

Mr. Bevan: Will the court be asked to take into consideration also the position of civil servants because information has been given which is now proved to have been incorrect?

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the question has been before the House off and on for three or four months, may I ask that a decision be speedily taken, because several people have been victimised and injustice has been done?

Mr. Attlee: That was the effect of my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that claims for war damage suffered by persons who are tenants of public utility undertakings are being refused; and whether he will state how such persons are to obtain compensation?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not aware of any refusals to accept such claims, but I will gladly look into any cases of which my hon. Friend cares to send me particulars. Claims by such persons should be made in the ordinary way to the district valuer of the Inland Revenue Department.

FOOD IMPORTS (DUTIES).

Mr. Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether duties are being collected on food imports purchased by the Ministry of Food; and, if so, what amount has been collected in this way during the current year?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." With regard to the second part, in accordance with the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question on 27th February, I do not think it would be in the national interest to publish these figures.

Mr. Parker: Is it not very wasteful first of all to collect money in duties on food, and then to pay the money back again when there is a rise in the cost of living?

Sir K. Wood: I gave a reply on this matter on 28th November, and I will send it to my hon. Friend.

MONETARY AND CURRENCY POLICY.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an assurance that the Government will not depart from the Ottawa Monetary Report of 1932 and the British Currency Declaration of 1933 without first obtaining the approval of Parliament?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The question whether there will at any time be any modifications of the monetary and currency policy of this country is hypothetical.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give to the House an assurance that no change will be made without consulting this House?

Sir K. Wood: I have already said no.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (SALES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average


daily sales of the Official Report for the month of February, 1939, 1940, and 1941?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The average number of copies sold of Daily Reports of House of Commons Debates published during the month of February, 1939 and 1940, is as follows: February, 1939, 1,169 copies; February, 1940, 1,325 copies. Statistics of copies sold for the month of February, 1941, are not yet available.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend let me know the figure as soon as it becomes available?

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid that it will be some time, because the month for which we have the latest figure is November. The hon. Member will have to wait a bit, but I will let him have it.

MEXICO (OIL DISPUTE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Mexican oil dispute has been settled; and whether diplomatic relations have been resumed?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Why not?

POISON-GAS WARFARE.

Dr. Salter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government, prior to the departure of the British Ambassador to Berlin, had undertaken not to use poison-gas in the forthcoming war if similar measures were not employed by Great Britain; and whether His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that the undertaking still stands?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the learned and gallant Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 4th October, 1939, the German Government gave an assurance on 8th September, 1939, through the Swiss Minister in London, that they would observe, for the duration of the war, the prohibitions which formed the

subject of the Geneva Protocol of 17th June, 1925, provided that His Majesty's Government also observed the terms of the Protocol. The German Government clearly remain bound by their undertaking.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Captain Alexander Victor Edward Paulet Montagu, commonly called Viscount Hinchingbrooke, for the County of Dorset (Southern Division).

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1941.

Order for Committee read.

SIR ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR'S STATEMENT.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I beg to move: "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
This year, like last year, the Estimates are presented to the House in token form. There is, however, a difference in the transfer to the Vote for the Ministry of Aircraft Production in the Civil Estimates of the greater part of the provision for Vote 3, the Vote for those technical and warlike stores which form the bulk of the equipment of the Royal Air Force. Air Estimates are accordingly relieved, but not, I am afraid, the patient and ungrudging taxpayer, of a burden of some hundreds of millions of pounds; but provision remains for heavy expenditure on these Estimates, which increases as the war develops and the Royal Air Force expands. I can assure the House that those who are responsible, both at the Air Ministry and in all Commands of the Royal Air Force at home and overseas, insist and will continue to insist upon obtaining full war value for public money spent. None, however, will underestimate the difficulty and complexity of the task under war conditions. We therefore respectfully and gratefully receive the vigilant criticism of the House of Commons. The Select Committee on National Expenditure and, in particular, the Air Services Sub-Committee, receive our fullest collaboration. During the past year the Air Services Sub-Committee have conducted a number of important inquiries. Their conclusions have pointed the way to improvements in various directions.
I do not propose to-day to dwell at length on the fighting achievements of the Royal Air Force. The world knows them, and the House of Commons has been generous in its tributes of praise. In the last 10 months, in two theatres of war, the Royal Air Force has fought against very great odds, but not without success—as the destruction mainly by our incomparable fighter squadrons of some

4,250 German and 1,100 Italian aircraft with a loss in combat of fewer than 1,800 aircraft of our own, the security of our shores and the part played by the Royal Air Force in the disruption of the Italian Empire, combine to testify. In speaking of the part played by the Royal Air Force in breaking up the Italian Air Force, I may perhaps mention to the House a battle, which took place only the day before yesterday in Albania, which is typical of many other battles which have taken place in the air over that country, when 15 of our Gladiators engaged 15 G.50's—one of the best Italian fightersC15 C.R.42's and 15 Savoia 79 bombers and B.R.20 bombers over Klissura. Our 15 Gladiators —which, as the House knows, are not the most modern of our fighters—destroyed six G-50's and one B.R.20, and probably destroyed one G.50 and one B.R.20, that is to say, they destroyed seven and probably destroyed two others for a loss of one Gladiator, the pilot of which baled out and descended safely behind our lines.
Our bombers have made 260 raids on aerodromes and seaplane bases, 300 upon docks and shipping, 470 on railways and communications, and 630 on industrial targets, all of these in Germany. In addition, very many heavy raids have been made on those objectives like the invasion ports and others in territories now occupied by the Germans. So much for the fighters and bombers, but those of us who live near the sea are perhaps more vividly aware than other hon. Members of the hard, dangerous and invaluable work of the Coastal Command. In all their varied activities of reconnaissance across the sea, convoy, patrol, attacking warships, U-boats and merchant vessels, and photographing and bombing enemy bases, in the last 10 months aircraft of the Coastal Command have flown 16,000,000 miles.
The air war is not being fought on our side by the squadrons of the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm alone. The squadrons of Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and the Rhodesias, squadrons manned by men from India and Newfoundland and from all the Colonial Empire, are playing their part in the battle. Day by day, in the Middle East and at home, the achievements of these squadrons redound to the honour of their own lands and of the


Empire. Moreover, a great and increasing element in our strength is contributed by the Air Forces of our Allies, the squadrons of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, and the Free French, Belgian and Norwegian airmen who are fighting with the Royal Air Force. And there is another squadron of which I venture to prophesy that hon. Members will hear more before long, the Eagle Squadron, mounted on Hurricanes and manned by American pilots. The Royal Air Force welcomes these brave men into its ranks. Many of the squadrons I have mentioned have already proved their mettle in brilliant actions against the enemy, like the famous 303 Squadron of the Polish Air Force, which in the last six months has destroyed nearly 120 enemy aircraft.
The number of officers and men for which provision is taken for the coming year is not, of course, shown in the Estimates, but I can say that the strength of one Royal Air Force Command alone exceeds the total peace-time strength of the Royal Air Force by nearly 50 per cent., while two other Commands have a strength equal to more than half the peace-time total. This expansion will be enormously accelerated during the year 1911–42. The man-power problems which arise in conditions of modern war bear with peculiar force upon the Royal Air Force, which requires a very high physical standard for its air-crew personnel and which employs so many skilled tradesmen for maintenance. The Minister of Labour and National Service has been very helpful to us. He has agreed that, broadly speaking, the Schedule of Reserved Occupations shall not operate to prevent any man, whatever his occupation, from serving as a pilot or observer. In addition, I have particular reason to be grateful to the Secretary of State for War, who has agreed to release for air-crew duties with the Royal Air Force a very generous number of Army officers and other ranks.
The Women's Auxiliary Air Force has proved itself an essential adjunct of the Royal Air Force. The high morale courage and devotion to duty of these airwomen in the face of bombing attacks have won the highest praise. Airwomen have made an unqualified success of every trade in which they have taken the place of airmen, and the range of ground duties

on which they are employed continues to increase. I ask for the support of hon. Members in appealing to the women of this country to swell the ranks of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
I think hon. Members will expect me to say a word about the problems of welfare. The unforeseen congestion of these Islands with immense forces of fighting men has invested the problem of welfare with unusual urgency and difficulty. Deprived on the one hand of a great number of aerodromes by the collapse of France, we were faced on the other hand with the need for finding room for our rapidly expanding Force. Many of our aerodromes are in out-of-the-way places; our pilots, crews and maintenance personnel must be dispersed away from the station buildings, often some distance away. Accordingly, the Air Council has paid special attention to the Questions of welfare, games, physical fitness and education. Yes, for officers and men who are fighting the enemy day by day from this country, we must have these amenities on the stations. But, especially during: period? of intense fighting, we also want to get them away from the stations, into quieter and more restful surroundings, where they can rest for brief periods, undisturbed by enemy attack. We take houses at some distance from the aerodromes for that purpose; but I have also to express my gratitude to members of the public, and, in particular, to many hon. Members of this House, who have generously entertained in their own homes officers and men of the Royal Air Force and of the Dominion and Allied Air Forces.
Several hon. Members have impressed upon me their sense, which I fully share —I see the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), the chairman of the Medical Committee of the House of Commons, in his place—of the importance of our medical services, and have helped me with useful advice. Let me, therefore, say a few words on some aspects of these services which aid our flying crews. Special attention is being paid to the very great problems of cold, to the supply of oxygen at high altitudes, and to night: vision. The development of aircraft tends towards flying at great heights, and research is continuous to find a solution to


the physiological problems involved. This is the kind of experience which our bomber pilots meet:
Immediately we touched the cloud the whole of the inside of the cockpit, including myself, became coated with nearly an inch of frost. Every instrument in the cockpit was covered, and I had to turn by instinct out of the cloud, getting an approximate check from the navigator. When clear of the cloud, I attempted to scrape this frost off the instruments, but could not do so for approximately five minutes, owing to the frost being frozen solid on the glass.
The House will feel, as I do, that we must find means of removing that menace to the safety of our crews. The scientists have come to our aid, and this problem of c old is being firmly tackled by the sealing-up—a very difficult technical problem in a fighting aircraft—and the heating of cabins, and by the provision of equipment, boots, gloves, helmets and underclothing of special design.
The psychological care of pilots is not less important. The early detection of signs of flying strain forms an important part ofthe duty of our medical officers. The fighting spirit of our pilots is so strong that unless they are closely watched they keep on flying long after they should have been rested from operations. The doctor's duty is to catch them in time, so that the squadron or station commander can make them rest. Good results have been achieved, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that the incidence of flying strain has been considerably lower than was expected before the war. I believe that our four orthopaedic centres are second to none in the country to-day; and behind them are rehabilitation centres, situated in the healthiest parts of the country, at which the most up-to-date methods are applied to secure recovery as swiftly as possible. In addition, centres with the most modern forms of treatment for severe burns have been established. The progress in the treatment of burns in recent years—I think I am right in saying, even, in recent months—is quite astonishing. For my part, however, I have been mainly concerned to match it with progress in prevention, and there are good grounds for hope that self-sealing tanks and other devices which we have recently adopted will substantially reduce the risk of burns. The friends and families of officers and men in the Royal Air Force, who risk life and limb against the enemy, are entitled to

this assurance, that Britain stands in the forefront of aviation medical research today, and that the most up-to-date methods of prevention and cure are continuously applied.
I come now to the organisation of flying and technical training in the Royal Air Force. The importance of this question needs no emphasis from me. As Secretary of State, I have, from the first, made it my particular care. The House will recall that an additional member of the Air Council—an Air Member for Training —was appointed last summer. It is his responsibility to ensure that a supply of trained men, air crews, and specialists of all kinds, is available to keep pace with the supply of aircraft which they have to man and serve. Flying training in this country meets with many difficulties, as it has to be carried on within the war zone. Nevertheless, we accept no reduction in the standard of training. Much has been achieved by adjustments in the training organisation. For example, specialisation as between fighter and bomber pilots begins earlier, so that each more quickly learns his special duties; and we have transferred a great part of the ground training to the initial training wings, so that at elementary and Service flying training schools the pupil can concentrate to the maximum on his flying training. By these and other measures, a marked acceleration of output has been achieved, although an inevitable set-back to training has been caused by bad weather during the winter, more particularly at the elementary and Service flying training schools; for it is at these schools that the pilot first learns to fly, while in the operational training units it is part of his training to fly in bad weather conditions, if they are not so bad—as they have often been in recent weeks—as to make flying almost impossible.
In the field of technical training also a very large expansion of output has been achieved. Courses have been shortened, by reducing the time spent on drill and by cutting out all items not essential for the requirements of a trade. In some schools training is now being carried out not only in double shifts, but even in four shifts. Technical training, like flying training, has been specialised. Trades where lengthy training is required have been split into sub-trades; for example, trades of welder, coppersmith, and sheet-


metal worker have been introduced, to share the work previously done by a metal-worker skilled in all these trades. As a result, many men from civil life have been able to go directly or after a very short period of Air Force training, into an Air Force trade. Arrangements for re-mustering and re-classification have also been greatly extended.
The success of the Empire Air Training Scheme has surpassed all expectation, and, together with the other training schemes in the Dominions, it is making an increasing contribution to our air strength. In Canada the output of pilots and crews is well ahead of schedule and there has been a great extension of training in Australia and New Zealand. Men trained under the scheme are now daily flying against the enemy, and in the battles of this year our cause will be sustained by Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and men from this country trained side by side. Men trained in the great organisation in South Africa and also in Rhodesia are fighting to-day brilliantly and successfully and will continue to do so in increasing numbers. The Colonial Governments too, the Governments of Malaya, Trinidad and Bermuda, have themselves devised arrangements for giving elementary flying training. A full-scale training organisation is being formed in India to train pilots for the Royal Air Force in India, and also for the Indian Air Force, and in Burma also a flying training organisation has been established.
In addition to these schemes, we have transferred abroad a number of our own Royal Air Force schools from this country. Our training is being carried out all over the world, unhindered, in those countries across the sea, by enemy action and black-out conditions. Every instructor and every pupil is able to concentrate on the job and nothing but the job. Weather conditions there are better than in this country, and each of these transferred schools should be able to put in a greater number of flying hours each year than schools in this country. Experience gained in this country is made available overseas, and we learn from our partners. Regular liaison is supplemented by personal visits. The Under-Secretary of State for Air and officers of the Royal Air Force have visited the Dominions,

and we have been glad to welcome here recently such distinguished visitors as the Minister for Defence in Canada, the Chief of the Air Staff in Canada and the Director of Air Training in South Africa, while only last week the progress of the Empire Air Training Scheme formed one of the subjects of a most valuable discussion with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Menzies.
The House will, perhaps, permit me to refer very briefly to the Air Training Corps. The scheme was launched on 1st February with the double purpose of providing boys of between 16 and 18 with a basic training which will be of value to them in the Royal Air Force, and of bringing up to the standards of entry into the Royal Air Force boys who would otherwise be unable, on physical or educational grounds, to reach them. It was the first scheme ever launched to cover the youth of.the country as a whole, and to-day, after 5½ weeks of the Air Training Corps' existence, the number of units formed is 1,051, of which 661 are local units and 390 are school units. The total number of boys enrolled is over 130,000. Considering that the total number of boys in the country aged between 16 and 18 is about 750,000, I hope hon. Members will agree that this is a good beginning.
For the progress of training much credit is due to the instructors and to all those who devote themselves to the laborious, unspectacular but indispensable service of training, and do it so cheerfully, loyally and resourcefully. They have fully earned their share of the tributes of praise which the House has so generously accorded to the Royal Air Force.
The production of aircraft is not a matter for which I am responsible to the House, but I hope hon. Members will allow me to say this—that we in the Air Ministry and the Royal Air Force recognise our debt to those who, in the crisis of the Battles of France and Britain last year, served us so well behind the line. Sometimes it happened that we lost dozens of aircraft in a single battle, but the pilots who baled out nearly always found fresh mounts waiting for them in the stable. For this strong and timely flow of aircraft into the Royal Air Force we must thank, first and foremost, the workmen in our factories. The man who gave un-


grudgingly of his skill, who worked long hours and seven days a week cheerfully, whose careful and unerring industry never flagged and who went on working after the sirens had sounded—he is a comrade and fellow-worker of the Royal Air Force, and their victories were his too. The executives, too, and the scientists, and designers, and the civilians and airmen in the Aircraft Storage Units and the other groups of the Maintenance Command who worked all hours equipping aircraft for battle and repairing them—I would ask hon. Members to agree with me that they have all deserved, as much as a victorious general, the thanks of Parliament.
In the air war, as the House knows, the importance of quality is paramount, and I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production will agree, that the efforts of his Ministry, under the dynamic leadership of Lord Beaverbrook, are now devoted, not only to increasing the flow of production but to bringing on, as rapidly as possible, those new types of bombers and fighters with which we shall engage the enemy this year. Later models of Spitfires and Hurricanes are now in service fitted with more powerful engines which have considerably increased their speeds and provided the ability to fight at much greater heights, while heavier armament has increased their fire power. The new Hawker Tornado is equipped with engines of nearly twice the horse-power of the fighters which bore the brunt of the Battle of Britain and can carry still heavier armament and yet obtain speeds well in excess of 400 miles an hour. Other engines of as great or even greater power are coming on. Then, in the new twin-engine fighter types we have the Whirlwind and, for long-range fighter operations and for night fighting, the Beaufighter, each with a very heavy armament.
Of the bombers, the Hampdens, Wellingtons and Whitleys have in the past constituted the main offensive armament of the Royal Air Force. The latest models of these are fitted with more powerful engines which give them increased performance and striking power. Some of them, indeed, although the name remains, are really quite different aircraft from those which flew under the same name last year. But these are being replaced by a range of very much heavier bombers, including the Manchester, Stirling and

Halifax. All three of these have already shown their worth against enemy targets. These bombers are more than twice the size of any earlier type. They are faster and carry not only a heavier defence armament, but also three times the weight of bombs for the same distance as their predecessors. Quality will also be maintained in the coastal reconnaissance types and in the types of aircraft employed in co-operation with the Army. And not without careful thought and study, I can give the House this assurance—hat unless Herr Hitler has up his sleeve a more effective secret weapon than any he has yet managed to produce, our technical superiority, with the moral superiority which accompanies it, will certainly be maintained throughout the year 1941.
So far I have dealt with the need of the Royal Air Force for the purposes of expansion of men and of aircraft and equipment. But we must also have aerodromes. I am keenly conscious of the conflict between the continually increasing requirements of the Royal Air Force and the very important need of food production. The problem is not a new one and, as the House well knows, not an easy one. More than half of the British Island is mountain, or rock, or marsh, or land which is in other ways unsuitable for aerodromes; and the land we have to use for aerodromes, which has to be level and well drained, and of a kind which will produce quickly a firm grass surface, is also, because of these very same qualities, likely to be good agricultural land. In these flatter parts of the country—in this part, which, as I have said, is, broadly speaking, suitable for the provision of aerodromes—3,700 miles of electric grid have to be avoided, and avoided with a wide safety margin—not to mention canals and railways, smoke from industrial areas, balloon barrages and other obstacles. An aerodrome must be less than 600 feet above sea level, otherwise it may be in the clouds for considerable periods. Moreover, the development of aircraft tends towards a longer take-off run, so that our aerodromes now have to be bigger than ever before. Heavy bombers and night interception squadrons cannot use aerodromes to which the approaches are not fairly level for miles around. If hon. Members will consider that, in addition to all this, each aerodrome


neutralises an area of 20 to 25 square miles around it in order to avoid congestion of the air space, they will, I think, begin to have some appreciation of our difficulties in providing aerodromes for the Royal Air Force without trenching upon the interests of agriculture.
I can assure the House, however, that the Air Ministry is taking no rigid attitude; there have been cases—and I will tell the House this quite frankly—particularly last summer, when immediate Defence requirements drove us to ride roughshod over other interests, but, although indeed our programme now is one of colossal proportions and great urgency, the Air Ministry respects agricultural needs. I have myself recently gone very closely into this problem with the Minister of Agriculture. As a result, I hope that an improved liaison will be achieved between the Air Ministry lands officers and the county war agricultural committees, whereby the interests of the farmers will receive an additional safeguard. The progress of construction of our stations has gone on well throughout the year, and a great number of new stations have been opened. Still more are in progress.
And now, I think, the House will expect me to say just a very few words about civil aviation. The effect of the war on civil aviation has inevitably been restrictive. With the entry of Italy into the war the direct flying-boat link between this country and Egypt was severed. The flying boats have accordingly been restricted to a service running from Durban to Khartoum and Cairo, thence across India to Australia. The link between this service and the United Kingdom is maintained by flying boat via Lisbon to West Africa, and thence by landplane across Central Africa to Khartoum. Across the North Atlantic last summer a series of round trips was completed without incident; and it is hoped that in the near future it will be possible to resume these flights.
Internal air-lines in this country have suffered the most severe restriction, for none but those which are essential to our war effort can be retained. No nation involved in total war can afford to maintain in civil aviation a single aircraft which is not directly helping to win the war. Our sea and air communications with Africa are the arteries of our armed

forces in the Middle East. The importance of the link with the United States of America needs no emphasis. As the number of aircraft ferried across the Atlantic increases, there will be a corresponding demand for the transport by air from East to West of the ferry pilots. In the face of increasing difficulties British Overseas Airways Corporation have maintained their existing routes as far as possible and have shown great energy and resource in the development of the Central African route. In addition, they have lent pilots and crews to bring back aircraft to this country from America. The experience gained in operating and developing these war-time services will be precious to us in the future. For we must not repeat after this war our failure after the last war to foster and stimulate the development of civil aviation.
The Royal Air Force is now on the threshold of its period of greatest expansion. During the next 12 months we shall be absorbing in rapidly increasing numbers the products not only of British but also of American industry. The Harvard trainer, built by the North American Company, and the Lockheed Hudson general reconnaissance aircraft have proved by long and arduous service the excellence and robustness of American design, and the latest mark of Hudson shows improvement upon its famous predecessor. The types of American aircraft which have reached units of the Royal Air Force throughout the world include such fighters as the Brewster Buffalo, the Mohawk and the Tomahawk built by the Curtiss Company, whose products are comparable with our single-engined types. The remarkable performance of American aircraft is well instanced by the Glenn Martin Maryland, a medium bomber which has shown its ability to outpace Italian fighters attempting to intercept it, and another medium bomber, the Douglas Boston, which is sufficiently fast and manoeuvrable for night-fighter operations as well as its designed function. Despite their speed, both these aircraft are capable of carrying much heavier bomb loads than comparable bombers in the service last year, while the Consolidated Liberator type of heavy bomber will give us an aircraft with high speed and huge bomb-load capacity. The Consolidated Company also gives us the P.B.Y. Catalina flying boats, which with their great range


form an essential reinforcement of the Coastal Command.
Herr Goebbels tells his German dupes that American help for Britain will arrive too late. But I tell the House that these formidable aircraft, the choicest fruits of American design and craftsmanship, will get here and will get here in time, and I hope the House will not have long to wait for further news of American aircraft which arc now in service or coming into service overseas, and in all four Operational Commands of the Royal Air Force at home.
For I would remind the House that besides the Balloon Command, which renders such invaluable and indispensable service in the defence of industries and population in this country, we have now four Operational Commands in the Metropolitan Air Force. In the centre there are the Bomber and Fighter Commands, and on either wing, linking us to our two sister Services, the Coastal and Army Co-operation Commands. In consultation with the Army Council the Army Co-operation Command was established in December in order to secure the most effective basis of co-operation between the Army and the Royal Air Force. Its primary function is to organise, experiment and train in all forms of joint undertaking between the two Services. The operations of the Royal Air Force in Libya and East Africa in support of the offensive on land were a pattern of effective partnership.
On the other wing the Royal Air Force spares no effort to help the Royal Navy and the Fleet Air Arm against air and undersea attacks on our trade. The Coastal Command, whose operations have always conformed to the requirements of the Admiralty, has been strengthened, and is being strengthened further. Aerodromes have been developed from which our aircraft may guard more easily the Western approaches. Aircraft of greater endurance and longer range are being brought into service, and the technical apparatus which enables aeroplanes more readily to hunt the U-boat is being steadily improved. Equally by bombing attacks on the bases of the U-boats and Focke Wulf, the dockyards and naval bases, the Royal Air Force aims at destroying at its sources the means of attacking our shipping.
The predominant theme of our policy in the Air Ministry is attack—attack upon the very sources of German military power. To attack effectively, however, we must attack from a secure base, and there are two dangers against which we are constantly strengthening our defences—the attack upon our shipping and the night bomber. Even here we never forget that the best form of defence is attack. Neither of these tasks is easy, and both call for unremitting effort on the part of scientists, designers, engineers, Air Staff, Command, pilots and maintenance personnel alike. The story of the achievements of the scientists, whenever it may be possible to publish it, will be found little short of miraculous, especially in the field of radio. But the field covers almost every conceivable sort of weapon of offence and defence schemes of every kind of deceiving the enemy and destroying him. I have held regularly week by week a series of conferences at which all developments which may be of value—and, I may add, a certain number which have proved to be of no value—are discussed, decided on, and, where necessary, have a drive imparted to them. Then there is the training of the maintenance staff, who look after the delicate apparatus of many different kinds, and those who have to use them in the dark against the enemy. I will not be optimistic about this menace of the night bomber. I have warned the country, and I repeat the warning, that attacks more severe than any that have yet been experienced may well come upon us. But I know that our methods of defence and counter-attack are gradually improving. Last night, the House may be interested to know, we destroyed by fighters and anti-aircraft fire four enemy aircraft and damaged two. As our equipment on the ground and in the air is developed and multiplied, and as our training progresses, we shall exact from the night bombers, as we have already begun to exact from them, an increasing toll.
How then do we stand in our air power against our enemies, and what are our prospects? In the first place, the House must remember that we have been fighting, and to some extent have still to fight, not one Air Force but two. By the amount by which we have had to strengthen the Middle East and do battle against the Italians, by so much has our strength been diminished against the Ger-


mans. Leaving out of account reserves, we have destroyed half the Italian first line, and we have certainly destroyed much more than half the first line with which the Germans entered the war. But the Italian output is not entirely negligible, and some part of our Forces will continue to be contained by the Italian Air Force. Meanwhile, the German output continues at a high level and augments the German Air Force. The House will not expect me to give any indications of how our output with the very substantial and increasing aid coming from America may compare with that of our enemies. I will only say this, that the strength of the Royal Air Force, in spite of tremendous battles and a continuing offensive, is very much greater now than it was when the Battle of Britain began last August—greater in numbers of aircraft and pilots in the front line, greater in the number of aircraft in reserve and of pilots under training, greater both absolutely and relatively to the air strength of Germany.
Nevertheless, I will not conceal from the House my own belief that the war is about to enter a grimmer phase. It will be no easy task to defeat Nazi Germany, but it can, it must, and it will be done. My confidence is primarily based on the achievements of the Royal Air Force and of their sister Services in the last 12 months. The Metropolitan Air Force has secured the mastery of the skies over Britain by day, and secured it against odds greater than it is ever likely to have to face again; while its defence against the German night bomber and its attack on Germany itself have both been increasingly effective. The individual ascendancy of our pilots over those of the German Air Force—an ascendancy won in the battles of last autumn at heavy cost but with brilliant courage and skill— is so far maintained that their chief difficulty to-day is to bring the German pilots to battle. Meanwhile, Air Chief Marshal Longmore's squadrons have swept the Italian Air Force from the skies of Africa, while in Greece, where the Greek people by their heroic resistance to a powerful invader have renewed the ancient glories of their race they have played their part alongside their brave Greek comrades of the air, and played it well. In Malta a tiny force, brilliantly commanded

by Air Vice-Marshal Maynard, admirably supported by the Royal Navy and the Army, and especially by the anti-aircraft gunners, and by the indomitable spirit both of the Maltese and of the British population of the island, has met and broken repeated attacks by overwhelming numbers of Italians, of Germans and of Italians and Germans combined. These are sound grounds for confidence as we look forward to the future—for the power of the Royal Air Force is growing and its spirit will never fail.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Before the Debate begins, 1 think I ought to call attention to the fact that obviously it will be difficult in the Debate to avoid references to matters which come under the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I am sure it would be the wish of the House not to tie the Debate too strictly in so far as it is reasonably necessary to deal with aircraft production. I only ask hon. and right hon. Members who deal with that question to be careful to avoid going into matters of administrative detail that come entirely under the Ministry of Aircraft Production and which could not be properly dealt with by the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Garro Jones: The House has heard a speech of great ability—and, if I may say so, one that was more than usually informative—from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air. I feel that one of the first things my hon. Friends in this part of the House would wish me to do would be to associate us with the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the gallantry and courage of the Royal Air Force, and particularly to its flying members. When you leave the Chair to-day, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the House will have had its last opportunity, perhaps before the greatest events in our history, of drawing attention to certain aspects of our security, and asking for those last assurances and precautions which it is not too late to take in our general Air administration. I said that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a good deal of informtion, but at the same time, he was not able to touch in any detail on the fundamental aspects of the comparative strengths of the German and British Air Forces. I feel that the House will not wish to cavil at that, but there


are one or two points about which I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some further information.
The first is with regard to the liaison between the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Air Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman was very specific in his expressions of gratitude to the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for War, and perhaps not quite so specific—I do not wish to make any invidious deductions from his remarks—in his references to the Minister of Aircraft Production. 1 wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentlemen is quite certain that on this vital question of production the liaison between his Department and the Minister of Aircraft Production is all that it should be, and that there is that absence of friction which co-operation between those two partners demands in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. If there is any weakness in that quarter, it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, which I am sure he will not shirk, to bring the matter to the notice of the highest authorities in the War Cabinet.
I want now to say a word on the question of the conflict between aerodrome requirements and the agricultural re-quirements of this country. I was glad the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this matter, because the absorption of agricultural land for aerodromes has reached a scale which is causing the greatest concern to the Ministry of Agriculture and to all who are students of our position. It is very difficult to decide how the problem can be overcome, but there are two suggestions I wish to put forward to the right hon. Gentleman which were suggested to me by the speech that he made. For example, he stated that the electric grids are a great obstacle to the taking of certain areas. I hope he will not overlook the fact that electric grids can be put underground in a very short time, and that there must be vast lines of electric grids which could be put under ground in order to make available for aerodrome use land which is less suitable for agriculture than certain land which has been taken.
The second suggestion I wish to make in that connection is that the taking of land for aerodromes does not necessarily completely deprive it of agricultural utility if the most modern methods are used. I have been given to understand that the

Air Ministry has set its face against the mowing of aerodromes for the provision of dried grass. Authorities are able to compute enormous figures of production of dried grass from aerodromes if the Air Ministry will lend a more sympathetic ear to the mowing of aerodromes for that purpose. I put forward these two suggestions in the hope that they will be of some help to the right hon. Gentleman in reconciling the undoubted difficulties he has with the Ministry of Agriculture.
I wish to mention a matter, of some delicacy perhaps from a political and secret service point of view, namely, the publication in technical journals of facts and opinions of operational value to the enemy. Our enemies, Germany, Italy and Japan, have drawn an effective blackout against all printed and other facts which might convey information to us. Yet we permit to our own technical journals what is. to me, a most inexplicable freedom to publish almost any kind of fact and opinion about operational tactics, about progress in training and production, especially in the United States and the Dominions, and, most important of all, about technical information, I am not at all sure that the question of intelligence and counter-intelligence has received its proper measure of attention from the War Cabinet and the heads of the Departments concerned. Every elementary student of war knows that it is a factor comparable in its importance, though perhaps not so easily measured, to questions of production and supply and training. One of our greatest soldiers—I have not had time to look up the reference—said that the whole art of war consisted of knowing what was happening on the other side of the mountain.
When I remember what happened in Norway, our ignorance about the strength of the Maginot Line and of the intentions of the Soviet Union and other neutral countries, such facts as are within my own personal knowledge in regard to our own air intelligence service, and particularly the erroneous statements which have been made to this House in years gone by about the strength of the German air force, then I feel entitled to ask the Air Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister whether our intelligence service and counter-intelligence service have received the attention which their importance warrants in comparison with the question of


production and supply, training and so on. I want to ask the Air Minister himself whether he is satisfied that he has the staff and whether he is able himself to devote the time necessary to this vital aspect of our war effort. When I first raised this question a year ago, I received replies from the Under-Secretary which I can only describe as of an "airy-fairy" character, and when I subsequently raised it with the Secretary of State I received replies which were no more helpful. I was told that the British aviation journals were the finest in the world, that they were great advertisements for our technical progress and our aviation products, that they were circulated in every part of the world and were a magnificent help to our export trade, and that, therefore, it would not do to impose undue restrictions upon their circulation or their export. All the time, every week, those journals were being exported to our prisoners of war in Germany or to neutral countries, and their contents cabled direct to our enemies.
I was not at all satisfied to allow that matter to rest where it was, not only because I was anxious about the matter, but because I knew that high officers in the Royal Air Force, whose names the House will not expect me to divulge, and eminent technicians associated with the Royal Air Force, were extremely perturbed about the amount of information which was being conveyed to the enemy through the freedom given to our technical journals to publish information of this kind. I therefore took the matter up privately with the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I want to say candidly that I received from him the greatest courtesy and consideration and that he investigated the submissions I made to him with great thoroughness. I am bound to add I felt in the discussions which I had with him an attitude on his part of a certain reserve which indicated that he had not—although he gave me no specific information about this—the necessary power or authority to prevent the publication of information of the greatest value to the enemy in these technical journals. I want to ask the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary whether they are prepared to give some further attention to this matter. I

cannot expend Parliamentary time in giving a list of every item to which I have drawn the attention of the Air Ministry, but I must impart some reality and substance to my remarks by telling hon. Members some of the things which are allowed to appear in these journals. For example, there was a detailed analysis of the defects of German incendiary bombs and the reasons why they have failed, pointing out how those defects could be remedied. Information which has been collected as a result of an enormous amount of research by all the resources of a skilful technical Press has been placed in the hands of the Germans within a few weeks. Obviously that is a matter which ought not to be allowed to be published. Then there were reports of production figures carefully culled from American and other sources all over the world tabulated in these journals and presented on a platter to Goering or whoever is the head of the German intelligence service.
Then there was an indication of the types of German fighters and bombers destroyed in this country, and the addresses of Air Ministry contractors were published. We all know that in the production of aircraft there are certain bottlenecks. Let us suppose, for the sake of example, the case of carburettors, although that does not happen to be one. It would have been possible from this long list, extending over nearly a dozen pages, to find the addresses of every carburettor manufacturer for the Royal Air Force. It seems to me that that is carrying the interests of our export trade, in comparison with the interests of our own security, a little too far. Then again we find long articles on technical manufacturing operations and performance tests of the most up-to-date kind. Let me give an example—I think it is a matter to which attention might be properly drawn — in connection with an issue of the "Aeroplane" this month. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air say that the development of flying at great height, as everyone who is associated with this problem knows, is a development which is proving of ever-increasing importance. This week, in this technical journal, there is an article which shows that they have had access to the most detailed scientific tests made at the Royal Aircraft establishment on the question of the supply of fuel to aircraft


engines at great heights. I will read the preamble to this article, because I want right hon. and hon. Members to judge for themselves whether they think such information ought to be allowed to be published:
The article which follows reports the result of comparative tests of a Junkers JV211D motor and a Rolls-Royce Merlin X." 
Hon. Members know that the Rolls-Royce Merlin motor is the engine which powers our Whitleys and other most modern aircraft.
We mentioned the test briefly in last week's issue of 'The Aeroplane, and stated summarily that its result was to show greater supercharger efficiency and slightly better consumption rates for the Merlin, but since the article tends to present these facts in answer to the popular belief that certain German aeroplanes have a slight advantage in height, we feel it desirable to suggest here that the Daimler Benz DB601E might have been chosen with greater effect for the test as a motor of better rating at height." 
The reason for any disparity in output between British and German aircraft at height is a point which the German technicians would be most delighted to have settled; yet here we have the result of Government experiments, carried out at the Royal Aircraft establishment with all the detailed scientific drawings, published over three pages, made available for cable direct to neutral countries, and through them to our enemies to assist them in their experiments along these vital lines. A few weeks ago minute descriptions were given, covering many planes, of everything that has been ascertained in this country about the towing and operating load-carrying liners. That was published in the "Aeroplane."
One of the journals concerned obtains high-quality paper to publish about 100 pages per week packed with information of the greatest value to the enemy or hindrance to ourselves. Some of it, I am sorry to say, is of a political character. For example, there is a strong bias in this journal against all American aircraft production. 1 think I can claim that I was one of the first to press the Air Ministry to utilise the aircraft production of Canada and the United States. From the beginning these journals have made the most bitter comments against aircraft produced in the United States, and have opposed with all their influence—and it is not small —the placing of orders in the United States. I am of the opinion that that is a matter which ought to receive the attention of the Air Ministry, because quite

obviously they are partly acting in the interests of those from whom they obtain their advertising revenue.
I will give two further examples. Take the training of Observer Corps in the identification of different types of aircraft. That is a matter which has been left almost entirely to these journals, which give sketches and details of various types. Such information should be circulated only to the members of the Observer Corps and others whose duty it is to identify these types. The information which is publicly broadcast in these journals is available not only to us but to our enemies. To my amazement, sandwiched in an article a few weeks ago, was a statement that all our gold had been exported to the United States. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but if that had appeared in a British daily newspaper, I venture to say that it would not have been allowed.
It may well be asked how the Air Ministry's intelligence Department could be so obtuse as my remarks would appear to indicate. For my part, I cannot answer, but I will give the House three partial reasons why I consider that this is allowed to go on. Firstly, the journals concerned are extremely powerful and resist restraint; indeed, throughout they have successfully resisted restraint. Secondly, as I have said, the Undersecretary does not appear to have the necessary power to impose restraint on these journals. Thirdly, there appear to be certain pedantries in the Intelligence Department concerned—they have existed for many years. Where it is thought that if a thing has appeared before, or if it ran be shown that the enemy knows it, or if a certain item of information shows strength, or if it be only an expression of opinion and not of fact, there is no danger in allowing it to be published again. I will not develop at length answers to those half-truths or the reason why those pedantries can be shown to be fallacies, except to say that where there is an expression of opinion in a journal about future tactical operations and future tactical developments which has been written by an author known to be in daily contact and to have the closest friendship with the highest officers of the Royal Air Force, then I say that that expression of opinion about aerial tactics can be as valuable as a statement of fact and should


be subject to the same restraint in wartime. The Secretary of State for War, when he made his speech last Thursday, was very careful to say that one of the methods of the Intelligence Service is to piece together items of information like a jigsaw puzzle in order to make a complete picture. Indeed, in the "Aeroplane" of this week the same principle is acknowledged, because there I find, on page 218, this statement:
Those who assess the strength and efficiency of the Japanese military and naval air arms and the work of Japanese air transport lines must gather their information in small fragments and put it together bit by bit if they are to form a reliable opinion and prepare a useful survey.
There follows an article on Japanese air strength, a matter which perhaps will become of growing importance to us. Despite the black-out which Japan has imposed upon its military information leaking out by this same method of piecing together, this journal has been able to publish a most informative article, covering several pages, exposing in full detail the strength, performance and so on of the whole Japanese air force. How much more so must that be the case when in this country practically no black-out is imposed? No restriction is placed on what can be said in aviation journals. No prosecution has been launched. One journal has published a statement of the greatest importance which it has been requested by the Air Ministry not to publish, and no action has been taken, while you get a pettifogging prosecution against a journal like "Reynolds" for publishing information which was of minor importance.
It is not only in Britain that this difficulty occurs. I am not saying it is an easy problem to solve. There are American aviation journals. In this country we do not publish damage that has been done to aircraft factories and aerodromes, but, owing to facilities granted to American newspaper correspondents, American journals are able to publish in the most minute detail damage that has been done to military objectives in this country. Everyone who knows anything at all about the United States knows how difficult it is to impose any restrictions upon the Press in war-time, let alone in peace-time. Even the law of libel there is practically non-existent, and therefore it would be exceedingly difficult for any

restraint to be placed upon them. This journal tells us precisely how many aerodromes have been knocked out in regard to their hangar and repair facilities. Of course, that information is cabled immediately to our enemies. Is the Minister quite certain that among all those American journalists, to whom such generous facilities are given, there are none who do not abuse that confidence? I do not wish to make any charges against them, because the tone of the articles is favourable to this country. Everything they can possibly say favourable to this country is said, but journalists always have a bee buzzing in their bonnets, which is to publish and get into print facts which they have learnt, and it is almost too much to ask, in a case where there is no patriotic feeling involved, that they shall abstain from publishing information of that kind. I could read out from this journal a list of aircraft factories which have been hit by enemy action.
My object in raising all this is not, of course, to make difficulties for the Ministers, whose energy and ability the House admires. We wish to give them our support and encouragement in the tremendous responsibility which they are shouldering. It certainly is not to criticise the Air Ministry Intelligence Department, but many people feel that there is something wrong somewhere, and my opinion on that matter is shared by people who are in a better position to judge than I am or than the two Ministers themselves are, who in their many distractions are not able to give the time and study necessary to this aspect of our war effort. The House is entitled, and I think bound, to demand from the Minister an assurance so unequivocal on this subject as to bring home to him, unless events should prove it to be unfounded, the full measure of his responsibility in this sphere. Even if only the lives of our gallant and skilful pilots were at stake, the House would have a practical obligation to satisfy itself. After all, the House speaks for the many who, in the historic phrase, owe so much to so few.
I want to ask the Air Minister whether he will not consider setting up some small committee of two or three Members of the House to investigate this matter and to reinforce such submissions as it might be found necessary to make to the War Cabinet if such powers as they already


possess are found to be insufficient? I wish God speed to the efforts of the Ministers and those for whose efficiency and well-being they are responsible to the House and to far wider circles. There are signs that intense activity is not far off. New British, American and German types are lining up and being tuned up on the hangars and on the runways. New tactics are already worked out—unknown tactics. Combined submarine and air attacks on our shipping have only just begun to mount towards their peak, and at such a time it would be appropriate that I should say that the Royal Air Force of all ranks, and especially the air crews, as they go into action in the months to come will carry with them the heartfelt goodwill of the many for whom we in this quarter of the House speak. We shall have sympathy with them during their difficulties and dangers. We shall have unflagging confidence that their skill and valour will play a great part in bringing to the British people the guerdon of victory and freedom.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I should first like to congratulate the Secretary of State on his very able survey of the whole work of the Royal Air Force. I was disappointed that he did not say something about reprisals. I have had to live in London a good deal in the last 18 months, and I know a little about the air bombing of this great city, and other cities are feeling the effect of this indiscriminate bombing. I should like to ask the Secretary of State what we are going to do about it; and are we going to have reprisals, because that is the only thing the Germans understand? If they hit us, we have to hit them back more heavily. One of the chief points in the speech of the Secretary of State which I was pleased to note was the reference to the co-operation between the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, in particular in the Mediterranean. What he said about that co-operation was very gratifying to those of us who, in the early days, pressed for an independent Air Force. We always said that such co-operation was possible, and it has been carried out, and those who in the past sought to break up the Air Force were wrong. The Secretary of State gave us a short account of what the fighters, the Gladiators, were doing in Albania, and also what the Coastal Command and the

Bomber Command were doing in the great work which they perform. There is also the great work which the fighters have done over this country in the battles of last autumn.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that enough is being done for the pilots, those gallant men who carry out this brilliant work. I had to raise a question the other day about the rewards given to our pilots for the Battle of Taranto. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that two D.S.O.s and six D.F.C s were given for that great battle, in which we had knocked out half the battleships of the Italian Fleet, two cruisers and two important naval transports. It seemed to me to be a very inadequate reward for that very brilliant victory at Taranto. Since then my letter-bag has been swollen considerably by communications from people in different parts of the country saying that I am perfectly right and that not enough has been done for our pilots. I know that good rewards are given, but the whole country is grateful to the Air Force for the wonderful way in which they beat off the enemy in the air attacks last autumn, for the great work they have done in their bombing attacks upon Germany, and the great work of the Coastal Command in sinking supply ships with their torpedo-carrying aeroplanes, the Beauforts, and helping to hunt submarines, and there is a feeling that not enough is being done for these gallant men.
I should like to submit to the Secretary of State for Air that something exceptional should be done. The highest authority in our land has recently introduced a new Order, the George Cross and the George Medal, and the recipients of that Order appreciate it very much indeed, and so do their relatives. I think the whole nation would welcome something new for these gallant airmen, and I would submit for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Cabinet that high authority in our land should be approached to see whether we could not perpetuate the memory of the great work of our airmen by creating a new Order, Knight of the Air, with, of course, companions of that Order. I think that would show our airmen in marked fashion how much we do appreciate their valuable services. We live in new


times, new men are carrying through this new work and it is high time we recognised it in a new way. I put this suggestion forward with great diffidence to the Secretary of State for Air, but, after all, I am one of the air pioneers in this country, as I started the Naval Air Service in the autumn of 1909, a good many years ago now; and I would not have put it forward had I not really felt that something more ought to be done to recognise the great work of these gallant men, who go up and risk their lives at all hours of the day. They live an uncomfortable life, and something ought to be done to show how much we appreciate their bravery and their great help. I hope the Secretary of State for Air will look into this question to see whether something cannot be done to express further the nation's gratitude.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help thinking that it is very appropriate that my right hon. Friend should hold the position of Secretary of State for Air at the present time, in view of the words he used in making his maiden speech in this House on 21st March, 1923. 
He said, among other things:
One of the characteristics which distinguishes air power from sea and land power … is its capacity for rapid expansion. That is why we must lay the foundation well in the meantime, for—-given the plant, pilots, mechanicians, draftsmen—it is a dangerously flexible weapon; we must be prepared, therefore, to expand at least as rapidly as any likely hostile power … We cannot, I submit, consent to remain indefinitely and permanently in a condition of inferiority to any Power, certainly not to any other European Power, in the air." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1923; cols. 2613 and 2615, Vol. 161.]
In that speech he showed remarkable foresight with regard to what was likely to happen and should be done in the future. My right hon. Friend has given an extremely interesting and eloquent account of a number of the aspects of this vital national problem during the last few months. He has described the activity not only of the Royal Air Force of this country but of the Air Forces of our Dominions and of the various Allied air contingents which have been fighting so gallantly with us. He has, in effect, been describing the operations of an international air force, something that was often discussed in pre-war days and declared by some to be quite impracticable because of the difficulties of command. It is interesting, therefore, to find that in

practice, in war-time, such a scheme is working very well indeed, and I venture to hope that it will form a permanent part of the international organisation under the command, for choice, if we have to make a choice, of some gallant British Air Marshal.
My right hon. Friend referred to interesting and encouraging developments in the defence against night bombing. About that I would make only this observation, that I am sure he has in mind the importance of two points which have particularly struck me. One is—I know that here we are on territory belonging partly to the Army and partly to the Air Force—the importance of seeing that the men on the ground engaged with the searchlights and the anti-aircraft defences are men of the highest intelligence. The very best technical qualifications are required now; it is not a job that anyone can be put to, because there is no branch of the Service which requires better training or higher mental powers. I am sure that aspect of the matter is being borne in mind. Then there is the importance of continuous and close co-operation between the searchlights on the ground and the night intercepters in the air.
Reference was made by the Secretary of State to the question of training, and I was glad to hear the various announcements that he made about what the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for War were doing to help in the supply of pilots. I understand, despite all the training that we are doing, that there has been no falling off in the standard. We have obtained a great superiority over the Germans in that respect, and it has been very well worth while. It has enabled us to do what the Germans never seem to be able to carry out—an attack right into that part of the country where are the real objectives, an oil refinery or a dock or something of that kind. To bomb that kind of thing is infinitely more important than to go to a town and possibly scatter terror among people for a short time. This does no permanent damage, compared with the direct, precise form of attack. which we are able to carry out on every occasion that our aircraft go to Germany. If my right hon. Friend could introduce a psychological test for pilots to find out, before they actually go in for training, whether they are likely to be fit for the work, we could avoid their


being trained for some months and then having to give up the work. Such tests are used in industry and are very effective. Possibly they are already in operation, and they can be very useful.
I would like to mention the Observer Corps, which has been on active service since the beginning of the war. The members of this corps have most responsible and arduous duties to carry out, and they are not particularly satisfied with their status, their uniform and various other matters. I believe that the Secretary of State is aware of the difficulties and is looking into the matter; I hope he will be able to make a statement before very long. Compared with other Services which are doing splendid work and wearing uniform, the Observer Corps can claim to be doing at least as much. They have to go out in all weathers, sometimes all night long, in rain, hail or snow. They do not feel particularly enthusiastic about the boiler-suit type of uniform which they get at the present time. They deserve the gratitude of the nation, and if anything can be done for them on the lines which I believe are being considered, in order to settle their status and give them the satisfaction to which they are entitled, it will be in the national interest to do so. It will be greatly appreciated by this splendid corps of hard-working volunteers.
Then there is the Air Transport Auxiliary, commonly referred to as the ferry pilots pool. It is composed of those who, for one reason or another, while they may be excellent flyers and very enthusiastic, are not eligible for the Royal Air Force. Admittedly, actual fighting does not come their way, but their task is, apart from this, in many respects even more arduous than that of the Royal Air Force. A pilot in this corps may have to fly any one of 20 or 30 different types of aircraft, and to go at any moment to any factory in any part of England in order to fly, possibly in bad weather, a machine to some aerodrome which he may never have visited before and which will be well camouflaged. The pilot has to find his way there and to land the priceless machine on the aerodrome, as instructed. One of the greatest difficulties with which they have to deal, and their greatest enemy, is the balloon barrage. They have to find their way over, round or through those obstacles, which vary from

time to time, and great skill is required if they are to get home with their valuable machine. A word of praise should be given to them for the services which they are rendering to the nation at the present time.
An eloquent speech was made on the Army Estimates from one of the Government Benches on the subject of red tape. From the accounts which have reached me I have formed the impression that the Royal Air Force is not entirely without excessive red tape. There might be a greater delegation of authority to station commanders, and others lower in the scale, to give decisions on small matters. For instance, I understand that a station commander, no matter how senior his rank or how important his other responsibilities may be, is not considered responsible enough to sanction overtime pay in excess of six hours a week to a storekeeper who is trying to do the work of six men. That is an example of what I believe is actually happening. Could the Secretary of State say whether the question of red tape is being considered in the Royal Air Force as it is in the Army?
On the question of unnecessary expense and control, I would call attention to accountancy. When the war broke out, I understand that the checking and accountancy for stores and equipment of various kinds was abandoned in all operational units as quite unnecessary under warlike conditions, but it is none the less operating at present in training units. Numbers of auditors, and still greater numbers of storekeepers and clerks, are being maintained to check every transaction. If this process can be abandoned in the operational units, cannot something be done on the same lines in training units, in order to save money and man-power?
In the last war, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) referred to the Air Force on one occasion as the cavalry of the clouds. We know how well they then deserved that picturesque description. How much more they deserve it now for the magnificent services that they are rendering to this nation every day and night. When next they go into battle on a big scale they will carry with them the good wishes and confidence of every Member of this House.

Lord Apsley: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not follow him in detail, as I wish to make two or three points, and I desire to be as brief as I can, as the time is short. I would, however, refer to a matter to which the hon. Member referred. I thoroughly sympathise with his point about the Observer Corps, and I think that the matter might possibly be improved if they were given a uniform similar to that of the Air Transport Auxiliary. After all, there is ample precedent. Sailors, trawlermen, and sea pilots wear their oilskins and seaboots on duty, but when they come ashore they wear a reefer jacket and a proper sailor's hat. I think that the Observer Corps certainly deserve to be treated in a similar way by the Royal Air Force.
The points that I wish to make are these: first of all, the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) referred to the difficult question of aeodrome siting with a view to agriculture and to congestion. In his speech my right hon. Friend showed that he was fully alive to that difficulty, and that it was a problem which needed careful thought. This problem has been present for some time. I myself was alarmed at it as early as 1935 and 1936, when I could see these new aerodromes going up. Two points began at once to make themselves clear to me: first of all, that the construction of the buildings appeared to be on a permanent basis. They were made of bricks and mortar and concrete, were spread over a considerable area and were obviously there for a long time. It appeared to me that there were only two logical outcomes of this rearmament programme at the time. One was a disarmament conference, and the other was a war. In the case of a disarmament conference, of course, all construction of further aircraft and aero-domes would cease, and, indeed, we should have to do away with many of those already existing. In the case of a war, there were two logical outcomes— either that we should lose the war, in which case we should be compelled by the enemy to dismantle our aerodromes, or that we should win the war, in which case we should insist upon a disarmament programme to enable us to carry on our economic life.
I wondered whether we ought to build aerodromes which were obviously permanent fixtures and which made good targets for the enemy, when buildings of a more temporary character could have been put up. After all, the Army at the time were in many cases still living in temporary buildings put up in the last war, and I would have preferred to see money spent on that type of aerodrome, the more important parts being put underground. Aerodromes had to be on level ground. Formerly they had to be 800 yards by 800 yards, and then I believe the size was increased to 1,000 yards by 1,000 yards. We had of necessity to choose land which must be valuable agricultural land. I do not know what acreage has been taken, but I do not think that I would be conservative if I said that the country has lost well over a quarter of a million acres of agricultural land. I know full well that the Minister of Agriculture is much disturbed by this fact. I wondered how that difficulty could be surmounted. At that time, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), the hon. Member for Melton (Sir W. Everard) and other hon. Members who were civilian pilots, I used to travel a good deal about Germany, and, what with making forced landings, I saw a great deal of that country. There appeared to me to be two puzzles as far as German aviation was concerned. One was that, despite the large quantity of machines which we knew they had, we hardly saw any flying, and the second was the very small number of aerodromes. If you wanted to see German machines flying, you had to get up early in the morning—in fact, before sunrise, and then the air was full of them. To do that, you had to start from a private aerodrome or come in from a neutral country. They saw to it, with Customs restrictions and weather reports, that no pilot was allowed to fly before 10 o'clock, and that was when they were doing all their practice.
The other point which puzzled me, was how they managed to put so many machines in the air with so few aerodromes. That was solved when one saw where their aerodromes really were. The German conception of an aerodrome was very different from ours. They had their machines hidden away in forests, and their hangars and workshops under-


ground, the machines being brought up on lifts. A good deal of North Germany is sandy soil; the machines are carried on railways on to the runways, which run in a straight line for a mile or two, taking full advantage of the country so as to give a downhill take-off and an uphill landing, and not bothering about the wind. They often take off across-wind, and not infrequently down-wind, so long as they have a downhill run for taking off. That was the German conception of an aerodrome. At the time, I urged that we should do something like that ourselves, instead of spending these large sums of money on these 1,000-yard aerodromes with these great permanent buildings on the best agricultural land. When the Estimates came before the House the cost was £400,000 to £500,000 per aerodrome, and in almost every case the cost was doubled and will have to be doubled again.
One other criticism that I made at the time was that if you take 1,000 yards by 1,000 yards of good agricultural land in any part of this country, somewhere in that area you will find patches of clay, and those patches of clay will render operations very difficult in the wintertime, as I have found here and in France. They have to be concreted over. Therefore, the cost of an aerodrome would be more than treble the original estimate. There is ample opportunity for taking advantage of the large areas in this country where there is light soil, where runways can be found for downhill take-offs and uphill landings, where it is possible to put machines and workshops underground, and thus make them safe from German bombing. Indeed, I suggest that it is one of the most important problems at this juncture, if only to leave anti-aircraft guns and balloons to defend other parts.
I now come to my next point. As the House is not in Secret Session, I will not ask my right hon. Friend to give us any indication of how many Army co-operation trainer squadrons there are per division. No one knows better than I, as a soldier, the valuable co-operation which has been achieved between the Air Force and the Army in operational areas. Naturally, my right hon. Friend will not say how many squadrons per division will be required. I know full well the difficulty of production and the importance of

concentrating everything at this stage of the conflict on achieving the mastery of the air. The Metropolitan Air Force, the Coastal Command and the Fleet Air Arm must drive the Huns from the sky—that is the phase we are in now—before we can start other operations, and all our efforts must and will be devoted to that. Naturally, the production of large numbers of Army co-operation squadrons at this moment would take much of the supply potential that is concentrated on other branches of the Air Force. But I would lay stress on the need for training the Army in Army co-operation.
Over a year ago a colonel at the War Office brought forward a scheme by which light aircraft were to be commandeered from all over the country and further ones made so that, by using retired pilots and others, a potential might be built up to allow of the allocation of a few light aircraft as trainers to every unit of the Army in the country. That scheme seemed to have very hopeful chances, but I do not know what happened to it. Certainly nothing has come of it as yet. I suggest that it should not be difficult to achieve if we use our Empire resources. There is in this country a big potential for building light aircraft engines, and a similar potential can also be found within the Empire. Further, a by no means negligible number of these engines are made in America, and their purchase would in no way affect the production of war engines. I am certain that light aircraft engine production could be expanded both in this country and out of it with the resources available without harming the war effort in any way. So far as construction is concerned, most of these machines would be made of wood, and if the resources of Canada were used, I am sure there would be no shortage of that. Thus it should be possible to arrange a considerable production of machines for the job. As for pilots, the Home Guard could be used, both retired pilots who have kept themselves fit, and young men.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the help that the War Office had given him in regard to officer pilots. I am sure the War Office have done all they could, but I do not think anything is happening as a result of their efforts. I myself applied and passed my tests—and passed my medical test, for which I was stung for three guineas—but that was in January,


and I have heard nothing about it since. I do not know whether I am likely to. There are many other officers who have done the same, and neither have they heard anything more. I suggest that if this effort is to be built up into something, it is time a start was made.
My last point is an important one and refers to the question of troop carriers, in which I include all air transport for the Army. We are told that the Germans are able to transport four fully-equipped infantry divisions, and not only transport them but supply them from the air by dropping the necessary supplies on parachutes until landing grounds have been taken over. After that they can land supplies. We know from the example of New Guinea, where a great transport industry was built up on Junkers aircraft which carried everything from grand pianos to cattle, what those aircraft can do. We also know that for this purpose the Germans used the ordinary type of Junkers 5-2 with which all of us who have travelled in Germany as passengers are familiar. Instead of scrapping aircraft as soon as the design was improved, having made a good machine they went into mass production, and they are turning them out at the moment in large quantities without any modification. They also turn out others as well, but the Junkers 5-2 is still in production. It is a sound and useful machine which can be landed and taken off easily, and can carry a good load. That is the machine they use for troop carrying.
What have we done comparable with that? I would not, even if the House was in Secret Session, dare to ask my right hon. Friend whether the number of troops which we can transport can be counted in hundreds or in thousands with our existing potential of civil carrying machines. What is the reason? The Germans have a genius for centralisation and monopoly. They put all their efforts into one organisation, the Lufthansa, which never made any money, nor ever looked like making any money, but which did function. The reason they were able to make that organisation function is that they are ruthless in their methods, particularly in the way in which they deal with their civil servants. If a German civil servant falls down on his job, out he goes at once. In our country our ways

with civil servants are much more polite and kind, and we expect and receive adequate service from them, but in any war you have to take risks. You cannot get men to take those risks unless you treat them in the way that commercial companies working in competition treat their employés. It is no use putting a man in charge of a State monopoly if he knows he is in a safe job for ever, no matter how much he slips up, and that at the worst he will only be moved from one branch to another.
In this country we have never yet made a success of a State monopoly unless it consisted of an absolutely safe routine job in which no enterprise or initiative was required, and we never shall. Our genius lies and has always lain in competition among many units working together. That cannot be done in wartime; you must have centralisation, but, where that centralisation exists, it must be made as ruthless as the German organisation. Now is the time, if we are to develop what was formerly civil aviation under State control, for it to be done properly, and the men who work it must see to it that whatever the risks the job is carried through. The Army is very short indeed of aircraft both for carrying troops and for supplying them. Even the personnel in the East are not able to travel by air as do the Germans, because there are not enough machines. The number available could be largely increased, and I would suggest that the Air Ministry should turn their minds towards this point and do the best they can to build up, with American help, a great fleet of commercial aircraft. It will not be an expense on which we shall lose, for after the war it will be essential for us to take a foremost place among the great commercial flying fleets of the world.
Many people from time to time give us their views on what our war aims are. There is only one war aim for me, and I think it is a good enough one, and that is freedom. That is what we are fighting this war for—freedom. The freedom of the sea was built up by this nation, and the freedom of the air is going to make it greater and keep it safe. We must see that there is freedom of the air, so that we shall be free from German attempts at domination, and let us also see to it that there is no attempt at strangling efforts to develop the air as it should be de-


veloped, as I am afraid was done, as my right hon. Friend admitted in his speech, in the years before the war. I do not mean only by building the amount that we are potentially capable of building up during the war, but by providing in future great fleets throughout the whole Empire, so that we shall be a great nation in the air.

Wing-Commander Wright: I want to intervene only to say how pleased I was at the reference by my right hon. Friend to civil aviation. As one of that small band who in this House year after year always bring up the same subject, I was particularly pleased at the changed attitude displayed by the Secretary of State to-day. Twelve months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) and I were, I think, the only two Members who referred on the Estimates to civil aviation; and we did not get a very sympathetic hearing from the then Secretary of State for Air, or, I am afraid, from the present Under-Secretary. I hope that we are now really going to give to the development of civil aviation the attention which it requires. During the last 12 months the vital necessity of quick aerial communication in time of war has been emphasised by what has taken place on the Continent. It would not be far wrong to say that in the months to come that will be even more strongly emphasised. But we cannot carry on civil transport without the machines and the pilots. I was pleased, therefore, to hear that the Secretary of State hopes to resume shortly the cross-Atlantic passage. He announced that about a month ago, of course, in answer to a Question which I had put down.
I should like to think that he was going further. After all, the British Overseas Airways Corporation was sold to the public at a high price. Some of us who supported the Bill which brought about that purchase felt that there was a good deal in the criticism from the Opposition as to the amount of money that we were paying for the two concerns; but, since it was put to us as a fait accompli, and if we had not supported the Bill, it would have meant losing control of civil aviation. I felt that the thing that mattered was that we should get control of civil aviation without haggling about the price; and I think the Opposition felt that, too, as they

gave the Bill a passage without a Division. Nevertheless, that high price was paid, and it is up to us, as representatives of the taxpayers, to see that the Corporation gets a fair deal now that we have bought it. I was disturbed at the fact that when we had a great opportunity to develop this organisation as the obvious instrument for ferrying machines across the Atlantic, there was no intention of doing that. Civil aviation, as represented by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, has naturally been the Cinderella. The Fighting Services are a bottomless pit financially; and as that can never be filled, nothing can spill over into what seems less important. I am one of those who have always said that, for that very reason, we should divorce civil aviation from military aviation. The military side will always assume the greater importance, and the civil side will be neglected.
The Air Ministry has been Ugly Sister No. I, and has merely displayed her cruelty by neglect. We now find Ugly Sister No. 2 being represented by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and in this case the cruelty takes the entirely different form of trying to get a stranglehold on Cinderella, and to strip her of all that she has left of value to her—that is, her pilots and machines. If we are to maintain this vitally important war service of intercommunication—not forgetting that it is only by a civil corporation that you can travel to neutral countries at all—we must look after the British Overseas Airways Corporation. We must see that it is not stripped of its machines and its pilots. I would ask my right hon. Friend to look into the question of the Ensign machines. We had eight or nine of these very good aircraft, which were unsatisfactory only because the engines were not sufficiently powerful. I believe that the proper engines have been in this country for many months, but, for want of a comparatively small expenditure on material and labour, these machines are not being used. If those machines can be brought into service, they can provide replacements which will be required shortly; and they might even enable us to look further ahead and open up some of the services which should be opened up now.
Particularly important is the need for a service to South Africa. If we do not establish that now, we may never get the opportunity again. We have at the head


of the Government in South Africa one who is very friendly to this country; and while he is in control, it should be very easy for us to get that service going. The time may come when he will no longer be there, and it might not be so easy for us then to get in first. The country which gets in first has the best chance. I have always maintained that in civil aviation it does not matter what machines you use: in what country they are made; what really matters is getting your line established and known. You can increase the machines, the pilots, and the services as the opportunity arises. But if you let somebody else get in and build up a goodwill, it is too late. To come back to the British Overseas Airways Corporation—I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will look into the matter, because it is the duty of the House to insist that this Corporation, which we have purchased, shall be used for its rightful purpose. At the present moment that is not happening, and the House must apply all the necessary pressure to see that it is brought about.

Mr. Simmonds: Although many may feel that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) has devoted a great deal of his interesting speech to the question of civil aviation in these times of war, unless I am quite wrong, when it comes to times of peace again and hon. Members stand up in this House and criticise the Secretary of State for Air for not having taken sufficient initial steps during the war to safeguard British civil aviation after the war, I think he will come into his own and receive a due meed of praise. I do not want to follow him on this subject at any length to-day, but I would emphasise this point. At Question Time recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air gave the House an assurance that he would not reduce the activities of British Airways in so far as their route served areas of military importance. That promise could be interpreted in a narrow spirit and would mean almost nothing, or it could be interpreted in a more generous spirit and add to the safeguarding of the future of British civil aviation, to which my hon. and gallant Friend has just been addressing himself. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary,

when he replies, whether he can give us a little more qualitative assurance of the attitude of the Air Ministry to British Airways during the war. He could help in many ways by bearing in mind, for example, transport aircraft for the Royal Air Force or the Army, with regard to which the Noble Lord has just spoken. He could bear in mind the needs of British Airways for transport aircraft during the first 12, or may be 24 months, after the Armistice, when it will be exceedingly difficult to turn over to modern types of air-liners. That type of foresight, if we could weave it into our military decisions, would be of inestimable value to the Empire after the war is over.
One of the most important and interesting parts of my right hon. Friend's speech, in opening this Debate to-day, was his reference to the position of this country in the forthcoming air battle. In amplifying what the Secretary of State has said, I would like to add these observations from my own knowledge and experience. So far as aircraft are concerned, I believe we are actually stronger in fighters than the enemy, and that that is so without calling upon aircraft such as the Tornado and the Whirlwind, which even the enemy knows are not yet in the squadrons in very large numbers, but if we have these newer types coming into greater service during the spring and early summer—unless, as seems vastly improbable from all the information we possess, the enemy has some quite extraordinary surprise for us in fighter aircraft or fighter-aircraft devices—we shall have a most definite superiority on the fighter side of our air strength. Once we have an adequate number of fighters, it is, of course, bad policy to increase that strength overmuch, as we are clearly not yet so strong in bombers as the enemy, though I believe that on an average our bombers are much more modern and are becoming faster than those of the enemy, and, above all, our bombers have the enormous advantage of the turret-driving apparatus which the enemy bombers greatly lack. I hope, therefore, that we shall not overstep the mark of prudence with regard to our fighter strength by pandering possibly a little to our fear of invasion or other prospects by concentrating on the fighters and allowing our bomber strength to remain below that of


the enemy. I would press upon the Air Ministry and the Ministry for Aircraft Production the importance of our developing in this country a really fast day bomber. That is part of air equipment which at the moment we all find seriously lacking. I trust—and I do not ask for any reply to this—that the two Ministries will take that matter more earnestly into consideration. So much for the fighter and the bomber aircraft.
How do we stand with regard to the fighting personnel? I listened to the figures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air gave in his speech, and I thought that possibly he could have amplified what he said much more to our advantage than in fact he did. He told the House that we had brought down 4,250 German and 1,100 Italian planes, that is, 5,350 pilots, and that we had lost in combat some 1,800, of whom, I am informed, some 450 pilots wore saved, so that, in fact, we lost 1,450 pilots against 5,350 pilots of the enemy. The enemy thus lost 4,000 more pilots than we did. The point I want to make is that the enemy lost 4,000 pilots who at that time had a considerable degree of air training and experience. Our pilots have, since the battles of last year, been gaining in experience and in morale as a result of the great victories which they themselves and the great Force to which they belong have had the benefit of securing against the enemy, and the fact that the enemy has lost 4,000 more of his best pilots than we have gives us a degree of experience in our Fighter and Bomber Commands this year which must have an outstanding effect upon the air battles.
I would now like to address myself to two operational questions. The first is with regard to the news that we have been receiving recently about what are known as offensive sweeps in France and Belgium. To me, there has come nothing so sweet in the development of our activities in the air as the news that we have started these offensive sweeps over the Continent. They are the beginning of our air superiority over the Continent of Europe, and I hope that even though we may have set-backs from time to time —as, indeed, we had recently when we lost six fighters—the Air Staff will concentrate on the development and forcing forward of this vitally important matter, and

that at no distant date we may have the aid in these sweeps of the high-speed bombers to which I have referred.
The second point to which I wish to refer is the question of night interception. The Government may say, as they recall the situation in this country when the German air bombardment was at its greatest, that they did not speak too optimistically about the interception and bringing down of the night bomber, but, quite frankly, my own recollection is that there was a tinge of optimism in the pronouncements of Government speakers. The danger now, as I see it, is that with greater dispersal of the civil population, greater experience of air bombardment and more adequate shelter protection there may not be the same outcry, particularly in the daily Press, that there was last autumn, when night air raids start in earnest once again, and that, therefore, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production may tend to concentrate a little more on some other matters which will give possibly quicker returns and which do not possess so many headaches as this question of night interception From the point of view of increasing our night production and not only stopping the destruction of factories, I would like to see this problem of the night bomber effectively tackled so that workers can be encouraged to work during the night. I know perfectly well that the Air Ministry have put a great deal of work into it, and I know that they have had setbacks to which they were not really entitled, but the answer is that they must keep on, because in the coming months we must build up production at night in our factories to a much greater extent than we have done in the past. The appeal recently made by the Minister of Labour for. I believe, 500,000 new women in industry must be backed by the Air Ministry in providing that calmness at night so that these women may be put to work. There is no additional machinery for all these women to work on during the day, and they must work at night on the machines which are at present being used.
Now I would like to come to a point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) at the beginning of his speech. He asked whether the co-operation between the Air Ministry and Aircraft Production was as close and harmonious as might


be. It seemed to me that that was a pertinent question. He did not answer it very fully, and, indeed, it is very difficult for any hon. Member to answer such a question. But it should not be difficult for the Cabinet to satisfy itself on the matter. It is in the same sense of an appeal to the Government to make sure that we are proceeding on sound lines here that I make the same request. Perhaps I might indicate shortly to the House the type of problem I have in mind. When we were discussing the Air Estimates last year the Air Ministry was wholly responsible for its supplies. The present Undersecretary was, I believe, largely reponsible for the supplies side in the Air Ministry. With the formation of the present Government the production of aircraft was taken away from the Air Ministry and given to the Ministry of Aircraft Production under the dynamic leadership of Lord Beaverbrook. Any hon. Member will see immediately that unless great care is exercised, the fact that the Air Ministry lost that side of its activities to another Ministry is pregnant with future trouble and difficulties unless the whole matter is handled with the utmost care.
Here are some problems which affect the two Ministries and one wonders whether they are being sifted and decided upon on a 50-50 basis. There is the question of the ratio of fighters to bombers. I can well understand that the Air Ministry might say, ''We want more fighters for this and that reason," and the Ministry of Aircraft Production saying, "No, we find it much more convenient to continue building bombers in that factory where we are jigged up in a certain way, and, therefore, we press you not to go forward with so big a fighter programme." That type of problem must surely be arising in some form or other, and if the Under-Secretary could say that it is being dealt with amicably by both Ministries, I, for one, would be entirely satisfied. Is there full discussion, as between equals, on a great problem of State such as that? There is also the question of spares in repair depots; whether, for instance, we ought to keep all our spares centrally or build them into new aircraft and let those aircraft which are damaged remain damaged for the sake of getting aircraft out, or reduce the number of components by 15 or 20 per cent. and send bits and pieces

out to the Middle East and Far East and other parts of the world where we are flying?
Again, there is the question of types becoming obsolescent. I presume that at a not very distant date even the Hurricane will be obsolescent. When is it to go out of production? That is a matter on which the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production may have diametrically opposite views. Are those views being carefully sifted and given due weight so that in the national interest a right decision is made? As is known by anybody who has been involved, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) has been with the question of the production of aircraft, one of the most difficult and yet most important points in the development of aircraft production in time of war is when to allow a major modification to be introduced into the production. Is that point always being sifted out between the two Ministries in a way that will give us the most satisfactory results? In a word, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister for Aircraft Production have a weekly conference at which all these problems are sifted out over the table, or whether, instead, they write each other, or shall I say, add their names to memoranda prepared by their staffs which go across to the other Ministry. I would like the Prime Minister, who is Minister of Defence, to be quite sure that in all the difficulties of this situation there is the utmost collaboration and co-operation for the national good.
Lastly, we are apt to think of the air history of the last year in terms of so many aircraft shot down, so many pilots killed or captured, so many crews put out of action. But I think we should be more accurate in thinking of the achievements of the Royal Air Force in terms of the break-up of the Italian Air Force and all that that meant to the Fascist regime, and the break-up of all the plans that Hitler had for the domination of this country from the air. First, there was the attempt to put the fighters out of action by bombing the fighter aerodromes; secondly, there was the attempt to destroy the aircraft factories so that the squadrons could not be reinforced; and thirdly, there was the attempt to destroy transport. Then, when the Air Force had been forced on to the ground, the swarms of day


bombers were to come over and lay low each of our cities in turn, as parts of Southampton and Coventry have been. This is the measure of the work of the Royal Air Force in the last 12 months— that they have prevented this occurring, that they have enabled our war effort to continue almost as if there were no interference from the German Air Force, and enabled this House, as it has done for so many centuries, to continue to meet in peace.

NECESSITY FOR RESEARCH.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, realising that the quality of our pilots, aircraft and equipment, opposed to the great numbers of the enemy, has been the main cause of our success in the air war, urges His Majesty's Government to mobilise all the means of research at its disposal so that we may retain this all-important advantage of quality in the struggle which lies ahead of us." 
When I look at the modest two rings on my arm, and consider the gold lace and the medals for distinguished service which surround my right hon. Friend in his capacity as Minister, I feel a little diffidence in opening this Debate. But I hope I shall not be accused of immodesty, for when, some months before the war, I asked to join the Balloon Barrage, I was both flattered and amazed to receive a letter from a high and distinguished officer who asked me whether I would not find it difficult to combine my Parliamentary duties with commanding a squadron. I wrote back that I had no previous experience, and I was quite prepared to do the most menial jobs, even polishing the commanding officer's shoes. Unfortunately, the scales of fortune have now been tipped the other way; that distinguished officer is a prisoner in Sicily, and I am left here to move this Amendment.
The main theme of my Amendment is quality. The other day I happened to be standing on that portion of Black-down near Tennyson's Lane. To the South I could see Chanctonbury Ring on the Downs above Brighton, and to the North that line of chalk hills which run from Dorking and Reigate to Sevenoaks. Chanctonbury Ring is on the coast; at Sevenoaks one is already at the gates of London. Suddenly, a speck no larger than a gnat appeared off the coast, and it was not more than about three minutes

by my watch before that speck roared overhead in the shape of a multi-engined modern bomber. This small incident brought home to me, as perhaps nothing else so clearly could, the speed and the striking power of modern war. And I could not help thinking at the same time of the countryside at my feet, of the patchwork of plough and pasture, of the scattered farms, the copses, the sound of the woodchopper's axe, and the smell of burning wood—the undisturbed immemorial life of the English countryside. And I could not help thinking also of our great capital city which lay beyond those chalk hills, of the millions of people who come and go to their work every day in London, of the life in city offices and in great Departments of State—in short, the life of London which, except for the scars of war, carries on as in peace time. And I could not help reflecting that all this we owe to one main fact—the quality of our aircraft and the bravery of our airmen. I feel that we cannot do too much in future to repay the men who built those aircraft and the men who fought them so successfully. Surely, that great phrase of the Prime Minister's will pass into our national heritage:
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 1940; col. 1167, Vol. 364.]
People will feel the same all over this country. If I may translate that sentiment into the popular vernacular, I was greeted the other day by an old lady who evidently mistook my humble Balloon Barrage uniform for that of a Spitfire or Hurricane fighter pilot. She said, "Eh, lad, you ought to live rent free for the rest of your life."
It was the Spitfires and the Hurricanes that saved us in the battle of Britain, and it is a fact well known to people who fly that a pilot in a good machine, and better still a superior machine, will take on the greatest odds. As the air correspondent of the ''Daily Telegraph'' most aptly wrote:
A bad pilot in a good aeroplane is useless, a good pilot in a bad aeroplane is much better, but a good pilot in a good aeroplane is the guarantee of victory in the air.
One could not fail to see the corroboration of this fact in the great air battles of last summer, when we saw two or three Spitfires charge headlong into great droning formations of the enemy, 25 or 50 strong, and scatter them. When we


look back upon those days, the result seems to have been almost miraculous. I like to think that, in future times, that period when the air seemed to all of us to be full of the sound of diving fighters, rather like the sound of the screeching of angry cats, I thought—the rat-tat-tat of machine-gun fire, and the vapour trails in the sky—I like to think that those great days will rank in our history with the fire-ships of Calais and the great wind which scattered the galleons of Spain. It was quality which won us those victories. It is the old secret of quality, a secret as old as the battle of Marathon and as new as General Wavell's victories in the Libyan desert.
How are we to maintain this all-important factor of quality? Only, I believe, by daily and by tireless research. I believe that the Hurricanes and Spitfires which won us these victories were evolved from the original prototype of the Schneider Cup machine; and it is a sad reflection that in those days of peace at one time that great opportunity for experiment, the Schnieder Trophy, was left to the generosity of a private individual. We cannot afford to repeat such mistakes. I believe it is also true that the Hurricanes and Spitfires which won us victory over Dunkirk and over Britain were on the drawing board as much as five years ago. It is a fact that one must constantly bear in mind that the great machines of modern war take such a long time to prepare. Therefore, when we are fighting for our very existence, we cannot afford to lose a single minute where research is concerned.
I would like to put forward with all due humility one or two suggestions. This House has a certain characteristic which makes the charm of its atmosphere, a characteristic which makes a member regret the day he leaves it and which makes him feel, as I do, that he would rather spend his days here in the most insignificant capacity than be outside. It is that every Member has the right to get up and voice his honest considerations. Like every other back bench Member, I have no special means of information, and within such a limitation I have to reach my own conclusions.
I was frankly surprised when I found that research came under the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Diarchy is always

an uneasy form of government, and I cannot help feeling that, given the best will in the world, the diarchy which exists between the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production cannot but be difficult to work satisfactorily. I am making no personal attack upon the Minister of Aircraft Production. He is a man of dynamic energy and is such a good salesman that I am certain he would find no difficulty in setting up a booth for selling iced-drinks at the North Pole at a considerable profit to himself. Nor do I cast any aspersions on my hon. Friend, whose tact and sympathy make him an example of that saying of Disraeli's that "You can catch more flies with a tea-spoonful of honey than with a gallon of gall." Nor do I wish to refer to the resignations that have recently taken place in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Perhaps they would more properly be discussed in Secret Session. I feel that this system of diarchy must work uneasily. If I may borrow a familiar school phrase, I feel that the Ministry of Aircraft Production should be, although a willing partner, the "fag" of the Air Ministry-. The Air Council has to formulate its policy. It knows what type of problem it will have to face; how many machines, how many fighters and how many bombers it will require. It should never be put into the position of merely having to take the machines that are available. If I may escape the watchful eye of Lord Woolton and use a cooking simile: Supposing I want to make a chocolate pudding for four people, I shall require an ounce of flour, an ounce of butter, a quarter of a pint of milk, two ounces of chocolate and two eggs. Say, however, that I am told that as butter is short I can use only half an ounce, but as there is a surplus of flour, I must use three ounces, and as there is no chocolate perhaps I could use horseradish to add a little spice. It is all-important that the Air Council, which formulates policy, shall have the final voice in research and production.
In the old days, before the Ministry of Aircraft Production came into being, there were, I understand, two committees working at the Air Ministry—the Aeronautical Research Committee and the War Research Committee. The first devoted itself to problems of flying, and the second to problems such as armament and other


operational matters. I understand that since 1940 the War Research Committee has not been in operation. The advantage of the arrangement was that Sir Henry lizard was chairman of both committees and could, therefore, satisfactorily coordinate war operations with aeronautical research. That would be a valuable precedent to re-establish. I feel also that a scientific advisory committee might be of advantage at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I understand that the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty have such committees. They are composed, firstly, of scientists actually occupied in the Ministries, and, secondly, of scientists taken from outside. These are men who enjoy a wide national reputation and are in contact with men of proved scientific ability. Lord Hankey's committee, the Scientific Advisory Committee to the War Cabinet, might well be used to co-ordinate all the various scientific committees of the various Ministries. It might be a Cabinet of Science.
It is important, in this question of research, that no scientific ability should ever be overlooked. A man who is well known for his work on pressure cabins should not be compelled to work on fuses. It is also important that we should train as many as possible of the promising young scientists. We are told that it takes two years to make a promising research worker. Many great universities are near large manufacturing centres, and it would be useful to get the young research workers to study practical problems in the factories while they are still at the university. I also hope we are taking full advantage of the co-operation of eminent American scientists like Dr. Conant, of Harvard University, who has come here to give the benefit of his vast experience.
Thirdly, I believe that it is all-important in this war to get as much of our research and production as possible away from the range of enemy bombers. If we can do this, we resemble a man who can grapple his opponent by the throat while his opponent's arms are waving wildly in the air. Very shortly in the United States and in Canada vast arsenals of democracy will be in operation. I would like to see also an arsenal in the East based on India, South Africa and Australia. This would be an invaluable factor in saving shipping when every keel that can bring goods to this country is of value to us. I would like to see an arsenal of the West based on the

United States and Canada, using this country as an advanced air striking base in the operations against Europe, and an arsenal in the East based on India and Australia, using either Singapore or Egypt as an advanced striking base against any enemy in the East.
I come back to my main point, the question of quality. I believe that only quality of our men and machines will give us victory over the enemy. We are told that the second great battle of Britain is about to start. The enemy is mobilising submarines and fleets of bombers and stakes everything on strangling us this year. The stakes are enormous. If we lose the war, we cease to survive as a nation, but if we win, we shall have the honour of shaping the future of the world to happier ends. At this moment that future may depend on so relatively small a thing, as a carburettor or the pitch of a propeller. I believe that we have the intelligence and the best scientific resources of the world at our disposal. Let us try to use them. Across the Atlantic friendly hands are now stretching out towards us. America is determined to help us. I believe that the sentiment of the average American is best expressed in those last four lines of Alice Dewer Miller's poem:
I am American bred,
I have seen much to hate here and much to forgive," 
But in a world where England is finished and dead, 
I do not wish to live

Major Cazalet: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I am glad to have the opportunity of paying in a very humble fashion some small tribute to the great and growing strength of the Royal Air Force. It may well be invidious to draw a distinction of any kind between one Service and another, but undoubtedly our fighter and bomber pilots, who go up day after day and night after night, sometimes twice a day, are owed a debt of gratitude by the rest of us which we shall never be able to pay. I warmly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), which he moved in a most delightful and informative speech. His main theme was the necessity for quality for pilots, machines and equipment. If there is one direction in which we have the finest quality in the world to-day, it is that of


our pilots. I believe that our national characteristics of intuition, individual enterprise, and decision will always in the long run make our pilots better than those of any other country. One who is certainly entitled to express a view on the subject told me that at the end of the last war the numbers of German and British machines were more or less equal, and that the machines of the Germans were as good as ours, and it was only the moral superiority of our pilots which enabled our Air Force to triumph over the German.
Could we have a better example of the effective result of quality than in the recent short but very expensive adventure of the Italian planes which came over to this country? I believe that the Italian pilots are brave, and that the planes they used were excellent machines two or three years ago. The result of the encounter is well known to all of us. Even those with limited knowledge of the air know what a tremendous source of encouragement it must be for a pilot to know that his machine will not only not let him down, but that in case of necessity he will always be able to get just that little bit more out of it. But eventually you come to the point where "the best is the enemy of the good." We have heard in the past of production being held up almost indefinitely as the result of improvements being added by one Ministry or another at the last minute. Someone must decide at the particular moment what is the particular machine to produce, and I believe that the Air Ministry is best fitted to make that decision. It is the only way in which we shall have real production. No one will deny that in the long run quality will win and to get this quality it is obvious that there must be unceasing research in all aspects of aerial warfare from high-grade octane fuel to balloons.
I think very little is known about the balloon barrage. The men in it get very little credit and no publicity. Day in and day out these men remain on duty. When raids come, they have to stay put, and I think more credit should be given to them than perhaps has been given in the past. They have performed a very vital function. They have, with very few exceptions, kept hostile planes up above a certain level. I should like to ask

whether research is going on into the question whether balloons can get up to any greater height? Why has not a greater effort been made to get out to a height of double the present figure? In France balloons went up to over 20,000 feet.
Our success in the air war is due to two things—the defence put up by our aeroplanes and the defence that comes from the ground. The latter is contained in the organisation known as the Air Defence of Great Britain. This Force is for operational purposes under the Air Ministry, but for administration, discipline and so on, it is under the Army. It would perhaps be better, if we could do things over again, to put the whole of it under the Air Force, but I doubt very much whether in the middle of the war it would be possible to alter that dual control to-day. I want to say a word in regard to it as it is affected and as it is controlled by the Air Force. It is divided into searchlights, light guns and heavy guns. In regard to the first two, I have little to say. Searchlights, no doubt, are going through a process of experiment and flux: they have played their part in the past, and it is hoped that they will play it in the future. Light guns, namely those which can take on aeroplanes up to 10,000 feet, have not recently been utilised, for the simple reason that the German planes have kept well above 10,000 feet; therefore it is the heavies which have made their contribution in the last few months. It should be remembered that the A.D.G.B. has been responsible since the Blitzkrieg started for bringing down over 1,000 planes—no mean contribution to the air defence of the country. We often hear it asked why the barrage is not more effective. I think there is an answer to that. I do not think the man in the street quite realises the problem, the scientific problem, which we are up against. After all, the heavens are very much bigger than most people imagine. A very clever man once suggested that if we could divide the heavens into squares of a thousand yards or a mile and fill each square with shells, it would be a perfect and complete deterrent to aircraft passing through it. It does not require much calculation to show that to fill one square with an impenetrable barrage you would require something like 10,000 guns.
Again, I do not think many people realise that a shell from a heavy anti-air-craft gun takes 30 seconds from the time it leaves the muzzle of the gun before it reaches the altitude in which the aeroplane is expected to meet it and explodes. I am only giving these points to show the necessity for scientific research into these matters. In some cases, in fact, it is necessary to aim three miles ahead. It has to be remembered, too, that in the air we are dealing with three dimensions and not two, and it is obvious that much skill, research and scientific knowledge are necessary if we are to deal effectively with the enemy bomber by anti-aircraft fire. I believe that much research is going on under the direction of General Pile. Up to a point the barrage has been effective. It has kept the planes up, it has prevented them hanging about, and it gives us all a certain amount of courage when we hear the guns going through the night. Up to date it was luck rather than skill which brought them down, lately however, the defence has been gaining on the attack. We have heard about new inventions. They are coming into play. They are being manufactured in ever-increasing numbers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member said just now that he had finished what he wanted to say about this. I must remind him that research into anti-aircraft gunnery is not a matter for the Air Ministry.

Major Cazalet: I only made that point because I wanted to show that, although you discover new methods either of attack or defence, the enemy is always pushing ahead just a little further. I have not any doubt that within a few months the enemy aeroplanes will go up another 5,000 or 10,000 feet and increase their speed by another 50 miles per hour. So it goes on. If we are to deal effectively with this problem, we must apply our minds, our energies and our scientific knowledge to research the whole of the time. We have to keep just ahead of the enemy. It may well be that from among every thousand offers of inventions or suggestions only one is of use. That does not matter. To win this war we have to get ahead and keep ahead of the enemy in research and in quality. I am one of those who believe that the aeroplane is not merely a form of long-range artillery but that this war will very largely be won in

the air, by the Air Force. We have many assets, we have a cause in which we all believe, we have pilots inferior to none, we have the materials of the world available to us. Let us give our men everything that science and research and quality can provide, and I am sure that with this combination of moral and material assets victory will be ours.

Dr. A. V. Hill: It is recorded, I know not with what truth, of the late Lord Fisher that, when it was suggested to him that meteorological research and observation should be taken due account of in planning naval operations, he replied that His Majesty's Navy did what it intended to do, D.V. or otherwise. Fortunately that over-simplified attitude no longer exists in the Admiralty. Last week the First Lord of the Admiralty announced that a scientific advisory panel had been set up in the Admiralty. It was first proposed in 1917 that such a panel should be set up. It is no blame to my right hon. Friend that 24 years have elapsed before it has at last emerged. The proposal was made to him only three months ago. May I say how warmly it is welcomed by the scientific community.
The panel is to contain a Service scientist—that is, one within the Admiralty— two serving officers and two independent scientific men from outside. It embodies the principle which has long been urged of co-operation between inside and outside scientists on the one side, and between scientific research people and naval Service staff on the other. We hope that this is the beginning of very important developments in the use of research in the Navy in relation to war. A similar organisation already exists in the Ministry of Supply, where it functions admirably. One could recount a number of recent important achievements made within this organisation. Some of them are relevant to the subject under Debate, since they are concerned with air defence. The organisation contains a Council and a number of committees, the chairmen of which are members of the Council. It deals with every subject of interest to the Ministry of Supply, from substitute materials to mathematical ballistics.
I know how much value there is in this co-operation between inside and outside scientists and between scientists them-


selves and Service staffs. My own recent experience has been more particularly in the direction of co-operation between scientists and the Anti-Aircraft Command. During the last six months very great activity has taken place, and I am sure that the Commander-in-Chief would agree with me in the value that I attach to that co-operation. I should like to pay the warmest tribute to the friendliness and imagination shown by him and his officers in their co-operation with scientific people. It is fortunate that the organisation exists in the Ministry of Supply. There has been no serious criticism of it. Many problems, including the very difficult one of the night bomber, are being tackled. The Secretary of State for Air said that we must not expect spectacular results. Research on these matters ought to have been intensified years ago, but continuous progress will now be made as methods and devices which we are now trying help us to get over our problems. The Ministry of Home Security, through the organisation of its Civil Defence Research Committee, has the best available outside advice at its disposal, and it has excellent internal research and experimental stations.
What then about the air? The Ministry itself, as is also the case with the War Office, where research is dealt with by the Ministry of Supply, has practically no research organisation. I say practically none, but it does do research under the so-called Personnel Committee, which is a joint committee of the Medical Research Council and the Air Ministry, of which Sir Edward Mellanby is chairman. This Personnel Committee deals with problems of research into high flying, the comfort of pilots, selection, questions of vision and visibility and the design of equipment in relation to the personnel who have to use that equipment. This latter subject has been greatly neglected in the past. It is a very important branch of Service research. It is apt to be neglected because engineers are inclined to concentrate on matters of performance—aero-dynamic or other performance—rather to the neglect of the personnel and the human question of the men who have to use the equipment. That point, however, is now in hand, and one has hopes that similar research will be undertaken in the other Services.
There was a research organisation analogous to that of the Ministry of

Supply in the Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Defence, the so-called Tizard Committee founded in 1935. That, in co-operation with the Director of Scientific Research and the Air Staff, through those critical years between then and now did work of the very greatest and most vital importance. It had the advantage of frequent discussion with the officers commanding in different Commands, with the Air Staff and with the officers concerned with research and development. There was, therefore, very close touch with that Committee between the scientific people inside the Air Ministry and the scientists outside. There was also the closest touch between science and research on the one hand and the operational people on the other. Its success was due largely to the chairman of the Committee. The battle of Britain was won last autumn, first by the skill, courage and devotion of our pilots; then by the high quality of the material which they had in their hands, and thirdly—and it must not be forgotten—by the effectiveness of interception. Without interception, pilots and machines are of no value. That interception depended upon the organisation of the Fighter Command. It also depended upon research into methods and devices of interception.
The Committee to which I am referring just grew up, unlike that in the Ministry of Supply, which was planned from the start. It had little status and authority. It worked rather by good will and friendly co-operation. When the Ministry of Aircraft Production was formed it was found that the Committee no longer existed. Sir Henry Tizard himself, the chairman of the Committee, after a successful mission to America which has resulted in the cooperation of which we now read in the newspapers and the presence here of the President of Harvard, succeeded Sir Wilfrid Freeman as Air Member for Research and Development, but without any authority, as he was not a member of the Air Council on which his predecessor had been.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I think the hon. Member means the Director-General of Research in the Ministry of Aircraft Production?

Dr Hill: He found all sorts of difficulties in his way. He faced those difficulties with much more patience than I


should have faced them. I know those difficulties, and I agree with the decision to which he has now come. It is true that much work of the highest quality has been done by the excellent scientific departments of the Ministry. It is true also, however, that we are now living on our fat. Research does not consist only of following up known and existing lines; it consists of anticipating the enemy, of knowing what the problem is going to be one, two or three years from now, or at any rate guessing it; of seeing the enemy's countermoves to moves that we make against him, and of anticipating them. That anticipation or looking forward, that judgment of the future, is the essential basis of real research. It is those characteristics which make the great research man, and it is those qualities which, particularly in regard to the solution of the problem of interception, helped to win the Battle of Britain in the autumn. That anticipation is the function of inside scientists and research workers co-operating with those from outside, of scientists co-operating with the officers who have to deal with operational work. The matter could be put right now if Sir Henry Tizard could be induced to return by offering him proper facilities and proper authority in his work. He is not like Achilles, sulking in his tent. He is unique, alike for his operational knowledge, for his knowledge of aeronautics and aerodynamics, for his technical and scientific knowledge, and for the complete confidence which his scientific colleagues and, I may say, the officers of the Royal Air Force, have in him. I submit that it is intolerable that we should not be using a man of his quality to the full, and that it is disgraceful that he should be driven from his position in the Ministry.
An hon. Member has spoken about the presence of our American scientific colleagues here, and I mentioned them earlier in my remarks. There is another side to that bearing on the same question. The arrangements for this co-operation between ourselves and America have new gone through, but not without hesitations and delays in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. There have been temporary alarm and dismay in the minds of our friends in the United States owing to these apparent hesitations and delays. The arrangements on which so
much hope was based seemed to be lagging, for no apparent reason. The situation fortunately has now been put right, before irreparable damage has been done, and it is only fair to let them know that these hesitations were not the fault of their colleagues here, nor were they the fault of the Royal Air Force. We are very well aware of the advantages of this co-operation, we hoped and prayed for it, and the hesitation was due to the same personal cause as the other difficulties which I have mentioned.
The essence of research in war is to be ahead of the enemy. We are ahead now, but that is because of what we did three years back. What we do now will have effect, not next week, perhaps not next year, but it will have its effect some time. Where we are not ahead at present is where we did not do research at the right time. The danger is that of living on our fat. The nature of research is threefold. Firstly, there is the limited amount of long-range research, particularly into those subjects where 1 per cent. difference in performance, as in a race or fight, may make the difference between victory and defeat, and research into these matters can largely be obtained from our friends and colleagues in America. Then there is the ordinary research and development of the Goverment research establishments; and, thirdly, we come to this kind of operational research, if I may call it that, which is of the utmost importance and whose importance is not yet fully realised. It involves new, untried equipment which is going through its teething troubles and which has to be tried out under war-like conditions. If the new equipment is not understood by those who have to use it, it will be discarded without proper trial. Its trial has to be planned, its proper use by those who are to work with it has to be planned, and we have to try to anticipate the way in which the enemy will counter its use. This reaction between the pure research people on the one side, and those doing the business in the air or with the guns on the other side, is of the utmost importance in the type of war in which we are now engaged. Such organisation of research exists in the Ministry of Supply; it is now going to exist in the Admiralty; it exists in the Ministry of Home Security; and it must be made to exist to the same degree in the Ministry of Aircraft Production—or, failing that, let it return to the Air Ministry.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I think the House will agree with me that this is likely to be a very useful Debate. The point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Dr. Hill) is one that we and the Government should consider. The point is, whether this is a suitable opportunity for reviewing the situation in regard to air research and making different arrangements from those which have prevailed. Other hon. Members have pointed out some of the difficulties. The hon. Member who spoke last referred particularly to the break-up of the scientific committee on air defence, but he did not give the reason. In order to avoid contoversy, I will not mention names: I will only tell the House that the break-up of that committee was totally unnecessary, and that it was due to the interference of a certain person, who shall be nameless, but who made the conditions under which the committee had to work absolutely impossible. I leave it at that. This is an opportunity for the Air Ministry to reconsider its position in the matter. As has been pointed out by the last speaker, there is the closest connection between air research and actual operations. It is highly probable that new tactical schemes of value may originate from quite junior commissioned officers of the Air Force, and that they will be unable, owing to lack of scientific and technical knowledge, to judge whether the schemes are practicable or not. It is necessary, therefore, that there should be the very closest liaison between actual operational squadrons, and their officers, and scientists and technicians who are capable of judging such matters. On the other hand, any research department must also have the closest liaison with actual technical developments.
The House and the Government have to consider whether we are likely to get better results by making the gap between research and development, or between research and actual operations. My submission is that, on the whole, it is better, as research has to be, as it were, in close touch with one, and in less close touch with the other, that there should be close touch with operations, and less close touch with development. When we get on to technical questions, as apart from scientific questions, one wants a completely different sort of brain to tackle

them. That has become evident already in the working of the Directorate of Research and Development at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. May I give examples, and may I say, in presuming to address the House on this subject, that I have had some forty years experience in invention and development of new devices? I want to put it in non-technical and non-scientific language to Members of the House. I have found in my experience that the technical side of development of any device of one sort or another depends ultimately upon scientific research. In ordinary commercial engineering we are usually unable to get the best scientists in the scientific world and have to be content with what I may term cheap scientists. But we who are technicians pure and simple, and concerned with the actual production of mechanical devices, are, generally speaking, totally unable to deal with scientific research even in the branch of engineering in which we are engaged.
The important thing about Sir Henry Tizard, which makes him of supreme value to the country at the present time, is that he is almost unique in his flair for appreciating on the one side operational requirements, and on the other side purely technical considerations. I think, with the last speaker, that it would be a disaster if we did not employ a man of unique qualities such as are possessed by Sir Henry Tizard. He has found it—and I make no bones about the matter—quite impossible to work at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Whether that is due to some fault on his part or some fault on the part of other people, it is not for us to judge. The fact remains that he just cannot do it and that his work has not been carried on under conditions where he could get the best results. It seems to me that at the earliest moment, particularly now that the disturbing element to which I have hinted already is out of the way at the Air Ministry, he should be able to develop his unique qualities under very much more suitable conditions. It is notorious that he has also, in addition to the capacity of understanding all technical and scientific problems, a great flair for being able to get the best out of junior officers. I believe that is due to the fact that he has had Air Force experience himself. I ask the Secretary of State for Air to consider this point very seriously.
An opportunity has arisen for re-establishing scientific research on a proper basis in his own Ministry. That opportunity might well be made use of and be a factor tending to the efficiency and, I think, the satisfaction of the Air Force itself.
From the point of view of the Admiralty and Fleet Air Arm, though I am not authorised to speak on their behalf, I think the relations between the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force at the present time are so satisfactory that we should be perfectly content for this change to be made. We do not say that we must have research in a neutral country because we are at war with the Air Force. We are not at war with the Air Force. In spite of all efforts in recent months to put us at war with the Royal Air Force, we refuse to be at war, and all these attempts have resulted in better relations and more mutual confidence between the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force than have ever existed before. I think, speaking subject to correction by superior officers, as I am not authorised to speak for them, the Fleet Air Arm would be content to see research, and possible development as well, transferred from the Ministry of Aircraft Production to the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): Perhaps I might be allowed, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), who moved this Amendment, on having been lucky in the Ballot and having had an opportunity to raise matters dealing with the Service in which he himself is now serving. I would also like, if I may, to congratulate him on his speech. One of his points, which was followed up by three succeeding speakers, was why technical development and research should be at the Ministry of Aircraft Production and not at the Air Ministry. In some ways, I am in as good a position as most people here to deal with a problem like that because not so very long ago—within two years—I was at: the Admiralty. If you look at the organisation at the Admiralty you see under which superintendent Sea Lord the Director of Scientific Research works. If you look to see whether he is under the

First Sea Lord, who is responsible for operations, or the Third Sea Lord, who builds ships, you will find that he is closely allied to the production side and not to the fighting side.
Passing from that very pleasant Department, as I did, to the Ministry of Supply, the first thing I found was that we were raising with the War Office the question of whether technical and scientific people should remain at the War Office or go to the Ministry of Supply. The decision in that case was that they should go over to the Ministry of Supply and there they are to-day. Exactly the same thing happened when the Air Ministry shed from itself a part which became the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Originally, I am told—and most of us know it—Air Council research did not come under the Air Member for Production. Here let me say in passing that the Air Force and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, in particular, owe a very great deal to Sir Wilfrid Freeman. I think he ought to be given a great deal of credit for the production which won us the battles of last May and for the many new types which we are now bringing into existence. What I wish to stress is that when he was made Air Member for Production he was also made Air Member for Development and Production. That is to say, the Air Ministry decided that development and production, to be any good, must go hand in hand.
It is not usual for a member of the Government belonging to one Ministry to be replying on the Vote for another Ministry and several people to-day have asked whether the Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production are in close touch. I think the fact that we are can be envisaged by anybody who sees me standing at this Box to-day. This Amendment, too, is only in order because part of the expenditure on work in the Development Department at the Ministry of Aircraft Production is still borne on the Air Ministry Vote. That is the only way in which my hon. Friend has been able to get his Amendment in order on the Air Ministry Vote. So, what are we to do? We cannot put production engineers from the factories into the Air Ministry and attach them to various offices, but we are, in this set-up of production, in close touch with the user side by having a large number of Air Force


officers—most of them extremely valuable —attached to, and working in, the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Therefore, the users are close to the scientists and the technical people, and they in turn are close to the producers. I should be horrified to see research and development taken far away from production. I should have thought that my hon. Friend, being a manufacturer, would have known that we must, if we can, keep new development in line so that we can get mass production in the factories; that we must get the aeroplane into the air as soon as it comes from the factory, so that we can produce in large numbers. I think we had better leave the matter in the keeping of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, thus following the method by which scientific research and development work at the Admiralty, the War Office and the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Hopkinson: The Minister says that we should leave the matter in the keeping of the Ministry. Our contention is that the Ministry have failed to keep the men.

Colonel Llewellin: Does my hon. Friend mean that the Ministry of Aircraft Production have not taken hold of the job?

Mr. Hopkinson: They have failed to retain the scientists.

Colonel Llewellin: I think my hon. Friend the member for Cambridge University (Dr. A. V. Hill) was under a misapprehension. I have seen two letters that have passed between Sir Henry Tizard and my Noble Friend. Sir Henry has not resigned, and if the hon. Member for Cambridge University will look at the letters, I think he will come to the some conclusion. Sir Henry Tizard is, I regret to say, ill. He is certainly not sulking in his tent. He wrote that he thought as he could not come back for two months he ought to put his resignation in the hands of my Noble Friend. My Noble Friend wrote a letter saying that we hoped to see him back, and encouraging him to come back. Sir Henry then wrote another letter saying that he would think the matter over and he hoped he would be able to come back. My Noble Friend wrote a second letter wishing Sir Henry a speedy return both to health and to his duties.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that four other distinguished persons in the sphere

of production on a similar kind of work either have resigned or are so dissatisfied with the present situation that they are thinking of doing so?

Colonel Llewellin: I know that there are rumours. There has been a resignation of one person holding a high position in the Ministry, and rumours have got about. As far as Sir Henry Tizard is concerned, I can assure hon. Members that we do not want him to leave us, that we realise the good work he has done for the Royal Air Force in the past, and that he can do in the future; and both my Noble Friend and I will try to get him back, if we possibly can, as soon as he recovers from his illness. As rumours have got around, perhaps it is as well that I should tell the House what has happened. Sir John Salmond, a Marshal of the Royal Air Force, has indeed left us. Having served as Chief of the Air Staff, he came into the Department at the beginning of the war, and served in a comparatively low position in the Ministry, having once been Chief of the Air Staff at the Air Ministry. He came into the Ministry as Director of Armament Production. He has now resigned. My Noble Friend has been ill for three or four days and he was going to see Sir John Salmond on this matter, but when he returned after his illness, he had another letter saying that Sir John had handed over to his successor and had left. That is one case of somebody who has retired. There are three other gentleman whose names have been bandied about. I do not know whether I need mention them by name and I do not think I need go into their cases now. One wanted to go back to his firm, another wanted to go back to his association, and the third, as far as I can find out, never wanted to leave at all. To say that any of them wanted to go because they were dissatisfied with development or research, is quite wrong. They are not on the research or development side. They are still working in the Ministry and I do not think that any of them has any present intention of leaving. A great deal of rubbish has been talked about resignations from the Ministry.

Mr. Mander: These gentlemen are thoroughly happy and satisfied?

Colonel Llewellin: I believe they are. One of these gentlemen is Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardner. He is paid by the Association of British Aircraft Manufacturers and not by the Ministry, and it is a little difficult for us to keep him, if that association demands to have him back. It has asked to have him back. My Noble Friend has asked the association to let us keep him, but eventually, of course, he may go back and he is at liberty to do so. These gentlemen have not resigned, and it is really some malicious tongue that has spread the story that we have had all these resignations.

Mr. Garro Jones: With regard to Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, is it not a fact that he was appointed by the Society of British Aircraft Constructors in order to maintain liaison with Government Departments and that he was in the anomalous position of being paid by the society to do that duty? He then appeared to make some kind of transfer from the society by whom he was paid to the Government side, but nobody ever knew who was his real master and nobody knows to-day for whom he is working.

Colonel Llewellin: I think I ought to defend Sir Charles a little. He knows a good deal about aircraft manufacture and was doing valuable work with the Air Ministry. He is now doing extremely good and valuable work for us. He has been working on our dispersal scheme for factories and we are very much indebted to him for the work he has done. There is no question that he is working just as though he were a paid servant of the Government in the Ministry. He gets his instructions from the Ministry through the ordinary channels. I ought to say out of loyalty to Sir Charles, that he has worked hard for the country both under the Air Ministry and, since I have known him, in the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Garro Jones: I have no intention of casting any reflection upon the integrity of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner. What baffles me is the anomalous nature of his position, and I want to know who gives him the instructions to guide him in the work he has to do from day to day.

Colonel Llewellin: They are given to him in the main by the Minister. Sometimes they are given by the Air Supply Board, of which I am chairman, or they may be given by me, or by the permanent secretary, or anybody who is senior to Sir

Charles in the organisation. He acts under the instructions of the Ministry as opposed to acting in any way under the instructions of the trade. In other Departments there are cases where remuneration is still being paid by the firms and where no remuneration is asked from the State. There are a number of cases in the Ministry of Supply, and quite a number elsewhere.

Mr. Mander: Could the Minister state the position of Mr. Pate?

Colonel Llewellin: Mr. Pate wrote a letter asking to be allowed to go back to his firm instead of being Director-General of Engine Production. The Minister saw him, and I am glad to say Mr. Pate is still serving at the Ministry. Mr. Buchanan is a Civil Servant, and I have never heard that he wished to leave. I think it is rather unfortunate to bring a Civil Servant's name forward in this connection. I think I have dealt quite fully with the cases which have been going around. The hon. Member for Cambridge University stated that there was no independent scientists working with the Aeronautical Research Committee of which Sir Henry Tizard is chairman. There are, in fact, several outside scientists on this Committee, and in addition, the Chief Superintendent of the Royal Aeronautical Research Establishment, the Director of Scientific Research at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Director of Meteorological Research at the Air Ministry and the Director of Scientific Research at the Ministry of Supply. At any rate, that Committee is going fully ahead.
A question was asked with regard to balloons. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the French balloons did not go as high as was suggested. They did not reach 20,000 feet but 15,000 feet. That is higher than the balloons around London, but that French balloon was not lethal, that is to say, if an aeroplane ran into its wire, the wire would snap, the balloon float off, and the aeroplane fly on. There is not a great deal of point in having a balloon of that sort. We believe in keeping our balloons lethal, so that if anything hits the cable the probability is that the aeroplane will be brought to the ground. The hon. Member can rest assured that we are going very fully into the problem. and I think we have a solution to the problem of having a balloon with a lethal wire at a very much greater


height than at present. My hon. Friend will not wish me to give more particulars than that.
I want to say a word or two not so much in reply to anything that has been said as to ask indulgence in respect of one matter, should it arise. In the old days before December the Department which deals with this matter received suggestions from inventors at the rate of about 1,000 a month and some of them were very good, but I am afraid the majority of them had been thought of before or were not much good. In December the figure of inventions received, rose to 40,000 in that month alone. They have all been answered now, but if anyone gets a letter from a constituent complaining that his suggestion has not been promptly answered, I hope he will bear that fact in mind. I have said that some of the suggestions were not so good. One was that the way to tackle the night bomber was to take up a cat in every fighter aircraft and, as the cat could see in the dark, wherever it was looking you could aim your gun and you were certain of bringing down a machine. Another gentleman could not think why we had not decided before to freeze the clouds and mount anti-aircraft guns on them. He did not tell us how we could get the guns up there and he did not realise that the clouds are not a stationary platform and that ice is, unfortunately, heavier than air. But we get very good suggestions, and we do not want to discourage anyone from sending them in. We hope we shall be forgiven, however, if we do not deal with all of them as quickly as might be expected.
I should like to tell the House what I can about one or two other things in addition to what the Secretary of State had to say, on what we have been able to do. It seems to me that a fighter in the air is very much like a fighter in the ring. The pilot is the head and the eyes, the controls are like the nerve system of the human body, the guns are the arms which deliver the blows and the engine is the heart and, if you want to get increased power of performance, you want to increase the engine power. We have approved and have now under development five new engines. Four of them we are now producing and installing in aircraft. The Rolls-Royce Merlin is famous

the world over, and two new types of that are two of the five of which I have spoken. They give increased speed and they give performance at greater height. One is a conversion of an existing engine, and anyone concerned with production will know what that means. It is a change which we can make in the minimum possible time and with the minimum number of man hours. The other three are made by other firms. One of these, which is less than six feet in length, develops more power than the Royal Scot. The next thing I spoke about was the poise which gives the manoeuvrability to the aircraft. My right hon. Friend has also spoken about our three new heavy bombers, the Halifax, the Stirling and the Manchester, and also about the Tornado fighter and the Whirlwind. Naturally, he did not mention the full number we now have. There has also been the addition of the Fulmar to the Fleet Air Arm. These six aeroplanes are new ones which have come into operation since last May, and the Fulmar has already done very good work with the Fleet Air Arm.
In addition to these we have seven other prototypes, including the Tornado, about which my right hon. Friend has spoken, and one of them, I hope, will fulfil the requirements which my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr Simmonds) had in his mind. As regards both the engines and the aircraft, we ought to give a great deal of credit to the grand designers with the firms as well as to the large number of very good and very hard-working officials in our Ministry to whom, in part, the perfection of these designs belongs. I do not want to mention any designers by name, because it would be invidious to do so, but just as the name of Mitchell, the man who invented and brought out the Spitfire when he was dying of cancer—though I am thankful that he saw it fly before he died—will go down to history, so will the names of these others be on the roll of fame. As to guns, we are increasing their power and the number of rounds that can be fired from an aircraft during each second. With the increased speed of aircraft there is less time in which they are within range, and you need to deliver more lead into the machines you are trying to bring down. We have also to contend against any armour which may be put on the vita! parts of enemy machines.
I am afraid that I have talked much longer than I had meant to do, but I would assure the House of this—that there will not be production in quantity at the expense of production in quality. It is true that, here and there, we have turned down modifications which will not affect the fighting efficiency or the safety of an aircraft. Gadgets tend to creep in as somebody wants this or that personal device, but where a good thing is produced the House can rest assured that my Noble Friend will push it forward for all he is worth. He has a method of seeing the problem and of getting the man to deal with it. He takes advice as to who it shall be and sees him personally, and if he makes up his mind that the man has drive, the man has to go round and follow things up. On a question of guns, for instance, a distinguished officer in our Ministry had to report to the Minister by telephone several times a day on the progress that was being made. That is the way my Noble Friend pushes these matters through. For my own part, I happen to remember that in the last war we first gained superiority in the air, then lost it, but eventually regained it. I was at that time commanding a battery in France and a lot of my good friends the pilots who were observing for us were shot down—in the days when the Germans gained ascendency in the air. With those private recollections at the back of my mind I can assure the House that I, too, shall try to see that we not only produce aircraft in large numbers but of better quality than those of our enemies. That, indeed, is the aim of my Noble Friend and myself. We intend to succeed in that aim.

Mr. Granville: I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Air on the very interesting survey he gave us of the work of the Royal Air Force. Limited, as he must have been, by important considerations of secrecy, he was, nevertheless, able to give us a certain amount of reassuring information. He said that he refused to be over-optimistic in certain respects, and he gave the House a warning again that we have not yet seen our way to conquer the night bomber. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) moved his Amendment. It is extremely difficult to talk about technical developments and research in a Public Session of this House,

because most of such questions must be secret in war-time, but my hon. Friend initiated a Debate which has proved worth while.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State for Air answered in advance a certain number of the criticisms that have since been made. He told us that the Royal Air Force is facing the spring and summer stronger, and better able to meet any attempt of the Luftwaffe at a new battle for mastery of the air. We must remember the difficulties through which the Royal Air Force have had to go, including those of training, during the last year. The aircraft industry also have had difficulties, including those of demands made by the Services upon our man-power. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made a speech in criticism has left the House, I am sorry that he makes these speeches. It is vital that the Air Ministry and those responsible for production should work together to enable us to attain not only superiority over the Germans in quality but eventually in numbers, in the air.
Some hon. Members look upon questions of research and technical development in aircraft production as though they were entirely new, but they are not. This matter has a history. We lost on technical development in 1935, when we went in for the deficiency and expansion programmes. Most of the good experts said at that time that when you turned over to mass production and quantity production you were bound to lose something of the value of whatever help the Air Ministry might be able to give in the way of research and technical development. This is how we had to envisage this problem in 1939. When the Air Ministry had to make hurried decisions at that time, and to consider a doubled or trebled Royal Air Force, the position was not quite the same as it was when you could come to this House and say that technical development and research could be carried out in an entirely academic way.
This question of research and technical development concerns not only the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production said, it is not a new question to the aircraft firms themselves. I was glad that he paid tribute to the late Mr. Mitchell for his


great work in designing the Supermarine Spitfire, and, of course, there was Mr. Camm, who designed the Hawker-Hurricane. I would also mention men like Mr. Feddon, who gave us reliability in aircraft engines, when they themselves may not have realised how vital it was going to be to us to-day. I would also pay my tribute to the Air Ministry. I have never been able to make up my mind whether they are good or bad on this vital question of research and development, but I would say this: They certainly guessed right with the eight-gun fighter and with the reliability long-range bomber, and they were not to know that we were going to lose France as an emergency landing-ground. Therefore, I would pay my tribute to those men in the Air Ministry who gave a good deal of time, thought and study to this problem in the past and whose foresight has proved right.
The German air force gambled on quantity. They went in for vast numbers without the system of modification, without prototypes and without a period of experiment, whereas in this country, although we had a small Royal Air Force, we had the benefit of all those years when we were steadily producing and improving our types, so that when the expansion period came in time of war we were able to reap the benefit. I am certain that the Luftwaffe, when it made its great gamble in mass production—because, after all, it could not have started much before 1934—in turning motor-car factories over to aircraft production, and so on, must have made many mistakes, and here, I believe, was perhaps the key to the success of our aircraft last September, when, by reason of the long number of years of research and technical development, we were able to put into the sky aircraft which proved completely superior in design to those of the Luftwaffe.
One hon. Member has referred to America. I would like to pay my tribute to the American aircraft industry in sending those first-class military aircraft to this country, and I am glad that we had the reassurance from the Secretary of State for Air that they are coming in increasing numbers. I was also glad to hear an hon. Member behind me refer to technical developments and to co-operation between the Air Ministry, the Ministry

of Aircraft Production and the American industry. America can teach us much with regard to range and reliability, particularly on the civil side, but in fighter aircraft most improvements and modifications must be based on combat and fighting experience, and the Royal Air Force has had the opportunity of this experience. Designers, whether in the industry, in the Ministry of Aircraft Production or in the Air Ministry itself, must continually watch for the lessons of actual aerial combat with regard to fighter machines when they are carrying out modifications in development.
I hope that, in envisaging as we must, a great striking force composed of American and British aircraft, we are going to keep the closest liaison in technical development between this country and America. It may be that we shall see the American industry taking advantage of our lessons—the lessons of the fighting of last September and since—and it may be that we shall be able to incorporate some of the great advantages of American technical development in civil aviation. But in any event I would support the plea that has been made that we should do everything we possibly can to build up air production in every corner of the Empire, not excluding Australia. Australia is producing her own trainers today, and if we can spare the vital alloys and technical advice, we should aim at the building-up of an aircraft producing industry in every part of the British Empire.
My hon. Friend referred to the night bomber, and I would like to pay my tribute to those young men of the Royal Air Force who, night after night, are carrying out these difficult and dangerous experiments. They are working at a dangerous task, they work long hours and, I understand, many days at a time, without much leave, but they are a gallant band of super-optimists, and I understand that they themselves believe that they will one day succeed in meeting this menace. It was Lord Baldwin, I think, who said that the bomber will always get through. It was Goering who told the Germans that our bombers would never get through. At the present time Lord Baldwin has been proved right and Marshal Goering has been proved completely wrong, but I have confidence although the Secretary of State was very


cautious, that the young men of the Royal Air Force, working as they do day after day and night after night, will one day make it extremely difficult and certainly very dangerous for the German bombers to cross to this country and carry out bombing raids upon vital military objectives.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production will not neglect this question of research and technical development. I hope they will give every opportunity to young scientists to come forward with their ideas, and despite the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says he has had as many as 40,000 would-be inventors, I hope that the inventor will still find the door open at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and at the Air Ministry, because I believe that the civilian can still achieve much to help us solve these problems. When we have reached equality in numbers based upon the magnificent superiority of British design, I believe Hitler is doomed.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): It is my duty to reply on some of the many points that have been put to the Government. I would like to say how much my right hon. Friend and I appreciate the spirit of constructive criticism in which these Estimates have been debated, and to give an assurance that, even if I give a reply which hon. Members may consider unsatisfactory on some of the points that they have raised, or if I do not comment on every point, we shall carefully examine the record of to-day's proceedings, in order to elicit the maximum benefit from the suggestions which have been put forward.
I will take first the speech made from the Front Opposition Bench by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). His first point was, whether liaison between the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Air Ministry on production matters was all that it should be, and whether there was any friction. I think that that point has been answered in the Debate, following

his speech. The best example of that liaison was in the speech delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aircraft Production on these Air Estimates. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman harked back to the days of peace, when he used to make speeches, from an Opposition point of view, which were not so constructive as he has made to-day, when he tried to make the point that my right hon. Friend had been somewhat niggardly in the tributes he paid to the Minister of Aircraft Production, and that he had said more about the Ministry in general than about the Minister. I would point out that the words which the Secretary of State used were, "Under the dynamic leadership of the Minister of Aircraft Production."

Mr. Garro Jones: That was the expression used by Mr. Baldwin to oust the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) from the Premiership.

Captain Balfour: There have been changes since then in the use of expressions, just as there have in the way that the hon. Gentleman is now helping us in our task, as compared with the time when, I must say, he did not help us to prepare for these tasks. I come to the main point of his speech—a point which interested us very much. It was whether we are giving information of value to the enemy in the publication of technical journals. He was good enough to say—as was the case—that last autumn I investigated this matter, as well as specific examples which he brought to my notice. He was also good enough to say that he did not think that I had power to deal with the matter properly, and that he was not enirely satisfied with the result of my investigation. We had better examine, first, what powers we have. If he asks, "Can you stop articles appearing in the technical Press?" my reply is, "No, we have not the power to stop articles appearing in the technical Press, as long as the Government retain, as a matter of policy, the principle of voluntary censorship." Therefore, he is right in saying that I have not the power to stop these articles—nor has my right hon. Friend—since it is a major Government decision. On the other hand, if he says, "Have you ample powers to prosecute for the publication of information of value to the enemy?"
the answer is, "Certainy, ample powers are provided; and they would be used if the offence was substantial." The hon. Gentleman is a barrister—I have not that advantage—and he knows that Section 3 of Defence Regulation 39 gives that particular power.
All these cases are reviewed, and we are satisfied that so far nothing substantial has recently been published which would be of any value to the enemy. The hon. Gentleman quoted two or three specific instances from a whole score that he brought to me, and which I was delighted to examine in a constructive spirit. I hope that he will agree that I too am just as keen as he is to see that we win the war in the shortest possible time and in the most efficient manner. The hon. Gentleman has raised this case to-day, and I must admit that the case which he said was the worst, that of why incendiary bombs, or what we call the oil bomb, failed and what their defects were, was a bad case. But this occurred on 20th September last. It was after that date that we went into this particular question, and as a result, the editors of all the technical papers in the country were called to a conference at the Ministry of Information at the end of October or the beginning of November last. Since then very few errors have occurred. The hon. Gentleman quoted this week's "Aeroplane," and he has quoted to me the case of an article dealing with a comparison between the Merlin X engine, and the German Juno.
This article—and the House would wish to have this assurance I know, and so would my hon. Friend—was not published without reference to the Air Ministry, so we must accept the responsibility. It is not the Editor who can be blamed for the publication. We agreed that it should be published, and I will tell the House why. There were very good reasons for allowing it. The Germans have captured a Merlin X intact, and they know its performance and its structure, and, of course, they know the performance of their own aircraft. There has been much criticism in many quarters in this country of our policy of using carburettors instead of injection mechanism. This article showed clearly the advantages of the carburettor over the injection mechanism under certain conditions, and we felt it right that

the country and the technical people in general should have that particular knowledge. Our Intelligence Service must be the judge of what is likely to be of value to the enemy and what is not, and if anything has got out—I think the oil bomb story was undesirable, and immediate action was taken last September after it had appeared—let us remember that, in a democracy, security must be weighed against the morale of the population, and our policy is to tell the people all we can rather than follow the German line of silence and the consequent breeding of suspicion. The risks of slight leakage are, I believe, outweighed by the public support which is in general given for our policy.
I will deal briefly with one or two other instances given by hon. Members. I have here that particular article of 15th November in the "Aeroplane." It is an article by a gentleman I have not the privilege of knowing, but who is a civilian having nothing to do with the Air Ministry or the Ministry of Aircraft Production, who gives a most interesting discourse upon gliders, and who tells us, and probably the enemy, quite a lot that we may not have known before, but certainly nothing which could not have been known to the Germans or any one who studied the subject. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen talked about the danger of letting the enemy have information about identification. Nothing about identification has been published in our aircraft papers or in any aircraft papers of value to the enemy. But the Observer Corps do get information of a secret or confidential nature which has not been published in any paper.
I can assure the House that if we ever do find something serious, we shall not hesitate to act. If we are to have no discretion, then the main censorship policy must be called into question and altered, but under the present policy we have ample powers.
The final point put by the hon. Member was that the "Aeroplane" showed bias against United States products and orders placed in the United States. I, like him, deplore these articles, and from that point of view we have made representations to the paper as regards editorial policy, and, indeed, there have been complaints from the United States newspapers about this periodical's attitude. It is unwarranted and contrary to our experience, but so


long as we have liberty of expression and wish to take advantage of this fact in our national life, I believe we must also face the disadvantages. What the hon. Gentleman is really asking for—and I am sure neither he nor the House would assent to it—is tantamount to censorship of opinion when one does not like it. I thoroughly dislike these comments about American aircraft, which are doing splendid work and are coming forward in increasingly great quantities for our Air Force.

Mr. Simmonds: Could my hon. and gallant Friend, in the light of what has been said, give the House an assurance that the editors of these aeronautical and technical papers have shown themselves anxious and ready to understand the Air Ministry's point of view and to fall in with it?

Captain Balfour: As regards giving information to the enemy unwittingly, they have shown themselves entirely helpful. 1 did say that since our conference at the Ministry of Information last autumn I did not think there have been any cases of giving away, unwittingly, information which might be damaging.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen and my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) talked about the conflict between agriculture and the Royal Air Force as regards our need for aerodromes, and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen made two suggestions. He said could we not bury the overhead electric grid cables in order that we could place our aerodromes, without having to take into consideration the grid locality, and so perhaps save agricultural land which would otherwise have to be taken. Well, we have done that in certain cases, but when you put a high voltage grid underground, you have to have brick channelling, specially armoured oil cable and use a great deal of steel, labour and time, and unfortunately with our need for expansion being what it is, we cannot always allow these factors to enter into our consideration when having to go forward with an aerodrome.
He also made a suggestion about doing something more in the direction of grass drying. My right bon. Friend has recently appointed a horticultural adviser to the Air Ministry in order that we shall make the best use of spare pieces of land on which to grow vegetables, advise us

generally, and keep in close touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, but, as regards grass drying, we have for some time past been using a special type of hard grass suitable for aerodrome surfaces, and we have had the help of the Ministry of Agriculture in doing that. Where we have developed this hard grass, it is quite unsuitable for drying. It is true that opportunities for drying at aerodromes are limited in war time, but the difficulty is one that existed before the war. The matter was carefully considered by a Scientific Agricultural Committee, which visited a number of aerodromes, and they came to the conclusion that cutting and removing of grass for fodder purposes could not be carried out without retarding the development of a hard surface suitable for continuous use. In the last few months the matter has been reviewed again, and the same conclusion has been reached. I can assure the House that there is no prejudice at the Air Ministry against the use of mowings from aerodromes for fodder if conditions are suitable. We are quite prepared to consider any suggestion and would adopt it if it were found to be practicable from the point of view of operational requirements. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air have personal knowledge of, and have been in close touch on, this particular question.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol asked questions about the Observer Corps. One question related to uniforms. My right hon. Friend has had this matter and other matters concerning the Observer Corps under review during the past few weeks, and no doubt in due course he will be able to give the House some information as to the results of that review. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said that the accounting system in the Training Command was absorbing a great many accounting officers, and that there was a good deal of unnecessary red tape. We have three systems— A, B and C—of accounting in the Royal Air Force. System A is a peace-time system, system B is a simpler one in respect of operational units in this country, and system C is the system used in the field for units abroad. On the one hand, the House is quite rightly jealous concern-


ing any questions of spending public money without proper consideration and without due regard for economy; on the other hand, we want to get on with the job as fast as possible. At present the Training Command works under system A, and I am informed that if they went on to system B there would not be any great saving; nevertheless, as the hon. Member has raised the matter, we will look into it.
My Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol referred to Army cooperation and the question of transfers from the Army for air-crew duties. I believe he said that he passed all the tests some time ago, but has heard nothing. We have already welcomed the War Office offer, and we propose to take in the Army personnel, of which there is a very considerable number, with all possible speed. The bad weather has slowed down the intake of our trainees to some extent, not only as regards the Army, but all other forms of trainees; and therefore, the Army intake has been slower for that reason. We shall take all of them as quickly as possible. Some hundreds have already been taken into training, and we shall look forward to my Noble Friend coming to the Royal Air Force to continue that flying career which we all admire. The Noble Lord also said that we are behind hand in transport aircraft. He made a comparison with the German position, and said that the Germans can move divisions about by air. Possibly it is true that we have not got the number of transport aircraft we would like to have, but equally we admit a gap in our requirements in all other types of aircraft. My right hon. Friend has said that we are relatively and absolutely nearer the German strength than we were last year, but there is still a gap to be made up as regards numbers. A prerequisite for the economical transport of air-borne forces is air superiority over the fields of operation. Any deflection from our primary aim of achieving air superiority will only delay the time when it will be possible to employ air-borne forces on a large scale.

Lord Apsley: I laid particular stress on the fact that this fighting and bombing potential should not be interfered with, and I suggested that we should use light aircraft engines and machines of wooden

construction the potential for which was extant and which could be still further developed in this country and the Empire and in America.

Captain Balfour: I do not think the House will expect me to argue that suggestion, which is a technical one, on the Floor of the House. It is sufficient to say that engine capacity is the important factor for a long time ahead, and those responsible for supply must decide whether the development of a particularly specialised kind, which the Noble Lord suggests, would be practicable for the main purpose which is common to all of us, and that is to beat the enemy in the air with our fighters and bombers.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) and my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston spoke on the need for conserving our position in civil aviation as far as is compatible with war-time requirements. My right hon. Friend said in his speech that unfortunately at the moment we cannot think in terms of civil aviation unless the resources of civil aviation can be used primarily for war purposes.
I was attracted by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston that we should see now whether we should prepare to weave into post-war life some service aircraft converted for civil use. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production will have the full co-operation of the Air Ministry as and when reserves of design capacity are available for that purpose. I can give the House one piece of information about civil Ensign aircraft, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington said were lying rotting in the corner of a shed. These were produced for a particular type of engine which was found not suitable. American engines were purchased. Many of them are suitable for other types of war aircraft for which they are required, but, nevertheless, a decision has been taken that a certain number of these aircraft are to be completed and used for overseas communications. I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that the purpose of British Overseas Airways Corporation is to help the war as the chosen instrument of the Government for the maintenance of overseas communications.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), who has taken part in a good many air Debates, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Duddeston raised the question of offensive as opposed to defensive. The latter said there should not be too much concentration of fighters, and the former asked, "When they hit us shall we hit them back?" I firmy believe that we shall win this war by offence and by reducing to a feeble impotence the ability of Germany to wage war through the destruction of her industrial core. It is necessary that each one of us should take precaution and care to preserve our lives from becoming needless casualties because each has to play his part as a citizen in the war effort. Therefore, it is vital to defend our man-power, our women and our machines by Hurricanes, Spitfires, balloons and other defensive measures. But I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not in the sounding of sirens or warnings, by hours spent in shelters or by measures of defence that we are going to achieve victory. It is in the bomb, the tank and the gun, pounding away gloriously and relentlessly every day and night, and in our bombing force, where lies the best prospect of bringing the enemy crashing down.
Although we only show a token Vote, these Estimates are gigantic in their conception of the air effort which is to be achieved from this supply. In voting the token to provide material for defence and offence, I know that the House will share with me the feeling of humble thanks and pride that we are given such standard-bearers for the forces of morality and decency as our pilots and air-crews, to whom we gladly pay tribute.

Question, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE.

Resolved,
That such number of Officers and Airmen, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942.

Orders of the Day — PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942.

Orders of the Day — AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE,1940.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Schedule.


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote.


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force.
£ 10
£ 16.000,000

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1941, the sum of £4,020,383 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United King dom.

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1942, the sum of £192,055,400 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United King dom." — [Captain Crookshank.]

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn".—[Major Dugdale.]